Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr

Munna Devi vs State of Rajasthan and anr

Disposition Appeal accordingly allowed Court Supreme Court of India Decided Nov 06, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/664529

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/664529
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: M.B. Shah and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 06, 2001
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal accordingly allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890 Section 300: [Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain & Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ] Murder Accused alleged to have assaulted deceased with bricks and sharp edged weapons -Prosecution relied on evidence of complainant, mother and wife of deceased - Presence of complainant and mother of deceased not men...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal accordingly allowed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 354, 376, 451 and 511

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Munna Devi

Advocate Yash Anand, Adv. for; Laxmi Arvind, Adv. (SCLSC

Respondent

State of Rajasthan and anr

Advocate Manish Sanghvi, Adv. for ; Javed Mahmud Rao and ; Gopal Pras

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 354, 376, 451 and 511
Cases Referred: Kanti Bhadra Sha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal
Reported In: AIR2002SC107; 2002(1)ALLMR(SC)646; 2002CriLJ225; 2002(1)Crimes145(SC); JT2001(9)SC438; RLW2002(1)SC112; 2001(8)SCALE88; (2001)9SCC631

Excerpt

- indian penal code, 1890 section 300: [dr. arijit pasayat, d.k. jain & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] murder accused alleged to have assaulted deceased with bricks and sharp edged weapons -prosecution relied on evidence of complainant, mother and wife of deceased - presence of complainant and mother of deceased not mentioned n fir medical evidence not disclosing that injuries could have been possible by sharp edged weapons and bricks -blood stained axe belonging to complainant not seized - evidence showing that it was accused who shifted deceased to hospital - prosecution version found doubtful held, accused entitled to acquittal. .....during the investigation.3. we find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. the revision power under the code of criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. while exercising such powers the high court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. this court inkanti bhadra sha & anr. v. state of west bengal : 2000 crilj746 has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to writ a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges. 4. in the instant case the learned judge ignored the basic principles which conferred the jurisdiction upon the high court for exercise of revisional powers. it was premature for the high court to say that the material placed before the trial court was insufficient for framing the charge or that the statement of the prosecutrix herself was not sufficient to proceed further against the accused-respondent.5. as the impugned order has been passed against the settle position of law, it is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. the order of framing the charge passed by the trial court against the accused is upheld with directions to it to proceed with the trial of the case and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.6. the appeal is allowed accordingly.

Full Judgment

Sethi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the framing of charges against him under Sections 376 511 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, the respondent-accused filed a revision petition in the High Court which was allowed vide the order impugned in this appeal by quashing the charges framed against him. The appellant-compliant-prosecutrix has filed this appeal submitting that the impugned order is against the provisions of law as the High Court could not prevent the holding of trial by sitting in appeal against the order of framing of charge by sifting and weighing the evidence recorded during the investigation.

3. We find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. The revision power under the code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. This Court inKanti Bhadra Sha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal : 2000 CriLJ746 has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to writ a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges.

4. In the instant case the learned Judge ignored the basic principles which conferred the jurisdiction upon the High Court for exercise of revisional powers. It was premature for the High Court to say that the material placed before the trial court was insufficient for framing the charge or that the statement of the prosecutrix herself was not sufficient to proceed further against the accused-respondent.

5. As the impugned order has been passed against the settle position of law, it is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The order of framing the charge passed by the trial court against the accused is upheld with directions to it to proceed with the trial of the case and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.

6. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 2001 Same Parties Munna Devi vs State of Rajasthan and anr Same Subject Criminal Same Judge M.B. Shah and; R.P. Sethi, JJ. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 354, 376, 451 and 511

Criminal