AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
Although notice has been served upon opposite party no.2, but none present on her behalf even in the revised call.
Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court-I, Ghazipur as well as charge-sheet dated 11.06.2023 alongwith cognizance order dated 26.06.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Saidpur, Ghazipur in Session Trial No.188 of 2024 (Arun Kumar @ Mintu and others Vs. State) arising out of Case Crime No.138 of 2023 under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Saidpur, District Ghazipur. Court concerned has rejected the discharge application 11-Ba of revisionist vide impugned order dated 15.09.2025.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that revisionists have been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no independent witness of the incident. Victim in her written report / Tehrir has stated that she became ill on 18.04.2023 at about 10:00 P.M., however, she, in her statement recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., has stated the date and time of incident to be 18.04.2023 at 11:00 A.M. Therefore, there is sharp contradiction in the prosecution story as put forth by her in her written report / Tehrir and statements recorded during course of investigation. It has been further submitted that victim has stated that she was injected medicine, as a result of which her body came in the state of debility and taking advantage of this, she was raped. However, during the course of investigation, statement of Dr. Santosh Kumar was recorded by the Investigating Officer, who in his statement has clearly stated that he is not aware about any medicine or injection which can cause lifelessness while keeping a person in a state of consciousness. It is next submitted that the revisionist was taking training in the hospital run by Dr. Munna after completing his D. Pharma. Dr. Munna and his wife Dr. Archana @ Gudia wanted to solemnize marriage of victim with revisionist no.1, however, revisionist no.1 refused to marry her for the reason that he was already engaged. It was also submitted that in this matter, the first information report was lodged belatedly after a period of 29 days from the date of alleged incident. Lastly, it has been argued that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the aforesaid aspects while deciding the discharge application of the revisionists and has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner. Therefore, the present criminal revision may be allowed and the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 and cognizance taking order dated 26.06.2023 be set-aside.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that application 11-Ba of the revisionists has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court by a detailed and reasoned order dated 15.09.2025. The impugned order as well as cognizance taking order dated 26.06.2023 do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity, therefore, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
In Praban Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal 1958 SCC OnLine SC 79, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the nature of revisional powers of a High Court and held that the revisional power is a discretionary power which is to be exercised in aid of justice. Whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction depends upon the facts and circumstances of that case.
Further, it is apposite to refer to the powers and limits of the criminal revisional court, which the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment K.Ravi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & ANR. 2024 INSC 642 observed that the object of remedy of the criminal revision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. The revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, (2023) 7 SCC 633 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 653 has categorically held that at the stage of hearing on the charges, entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed and if no offense is made out from evidence produced then only the accused will be discharged, the relevant para are quoted below :
"11.The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case in which the trial court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately after filing of charge-sheet, application for discharge was filed. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the court.
2.The law on the point has been summarised in a recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap [State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 286] . Relevant paras are extracted below : (SCC pp. 197-98, para 11)
"11.… 11.1. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala [P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488] , this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227CrPC. What is required to be considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application has been considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused. It is further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
11.2.In the recent decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath [State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 109 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 380] , one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) speaking for the Bench has observed and held in para 25 as under : (SCC p. 526)
'25. The High Court [Hiremath v. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4970] ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239CrPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721] , adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held : (N. Suresh Rajan case [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721] , SCC pp. 721-22, para 29) "29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage."
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in following judgments Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma Vs. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 937, State of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin & Anr. v. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy also Known as Nithya Bhaktananda and Anr. (2018) 2 SCC 93, P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398, State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi, (2000) 8 SCC 239, dealt with the issues related to stages of charge and discharge and thereafter reiterated the well-settled principles that while considering the prayer for discharge, the trial Court cannot consider any document which is not the part of the charge-sheet. Further, nothing in the Code gives the accused a right to file material at the charge/discharge stage and the accused cannot ordinarily invoke s. 91 CrPC to get documents produced for his defense at this stage. The trial judge may sift and weigh evidence, but only to see whether a prima facie case exists but, cannot weigh the pros and cons of the evidence and discharge because the meticulous consideration of evidence is not required at the charge/discharge stage. At the stage of charge/discharge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offense alleged has been made out against the accused persons and if there is no prima facie case of commission of offense then accused shall be discharged.
Therefore, the issue is no longer res integra. It is well settled by a consistent line of Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions referred above, that at the stage of framing of charge or discharge under ss. 227/228 CrPC, the Court's inquiry is confined to whether the material placed by the prosecution discloses a prima facie case, i.e, grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offense, and not grounds for conviction. The Court may sift and weigh the material, but only for this limited purpose, and it must not hold a mini-trial, probe the evidence deeply, test its truthfulness or sufficiency, or separate the grain from the chaff, as these are matters for trial.
Upon perusal of the impugned order in the light of the above noted well settled legal position and after having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, prima facie, the involvement of the revisionists in the incident cannot be ruled out.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court has dealt with each and every ground taken by the revisionists in discharge application. Learned trial Court found that victim, in her statement, has specifically stated that revisionist no.1 assured to marry her and that is why the first information report was lodged belatedly. Learned trial Court also found that delay has also been explained by witness Munna Ram. It was also observed that revisionist / accused Arun Kumar himself has admitted that at the time of incident, he was working in the hospital where the incident in question occurred. Learned trial Court also fairly observed that it is not mandatory to take testimony of independent witnesses specifically in the matter of rape, as the said offence is typically committed in secrecy. Mere delay in filing the first information report in the cases of sexual harassment or rape is not sufficient to declare the prosecution story as false. Dr. Santosh is not M.B.B.S. qualified, however he is B.A.M.S., therefore his opinion is not of much relevance. This Court has also perused the copies of statements of victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Victim, in her both statements, has categorically stated that she has been raped on 18.04.2024 at 10:00 P.M. by revisionist. Therefore, there is no contradiction as far as date, time and place of incident are concerned. After collecting sufficient evidence, charge-sheet has been rightly submitted by the investigating officer. There is no illegality or irregularity or perversity in cognizance taking order. No criminal revision lies for setting aside / quashing of charge-sheet.
The impugned order has been passed after a careful consideration of the matter as well as all the grounds taken in discharge application, which appears to be in accordance with law. The impugned order is neither perverse nor arbitrary. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court finds no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned orders i.e. order dated 15.09.2025 and 26.06.2023 warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, relief prayed for by way of present criminal revision is hereby refused.
The present criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.