Defence Of Accused Cannot Be Looked Into While Considering His Discharge Petition: Jharkhand High Court Reiterates
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the defense of the accused cannot be considered when considering a discharge petition.Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, who presided over the case, remarked, "It appears that the points raised as a basis of discharge of the petitioners pertains to their defence in the case. The truth or falsify of the case could be decided only at the trial...
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the defense of the accused cannot be considered when considering a discharge petition.
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, who presided over the case, remarked, "It appears that the points raised as a basis of discharge of the petitioners pertains to their defence in the case. The truth or falsify of the case could be decided only at the trial and probable defence of the petitioners cannot be accepted at the initial stage of proceeding, which requires to be substantiated during trial. It appears that the learned trial court has recorded sufficient reasons while rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioners."
Significantly, in a 2020 judgment titled M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. CBI, the Supreme Court, while setting aside a Magistrate's order allowing the discharge application filed by the accused, observed that the defense of the accused cannot be considered at the stage when the accused seeks discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the present case, informant alleged that Sudesh Tirkey (petitioner) and 25-35 others, armed with lathis, guns, and pistols, attacked and threatened to get informant's house vacated. A chargesheet was filed under Sections 147, 148, 448, 307, and 386 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The
Following this, the Petitioner herein filed an application under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking discharge, which was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioner filed the present criminal revision.
The Petitioner argued that during the investigation, 14 witnesses were interrogated, but none supported the prosecution's case. Additionally, the Petitioner claimed that the investigation was conducted in a casual manner, extending over six months, and ultimately a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners without any substantial evidence.
The Petitioner also submitted that the FIR did not fully disclose the identity and address of the petitioners, and the Investigating Officer did not take the initiative to verify the petitioners' identity or their involvement in the case. Moreover, no firearms or empty cartridges were seized from the scene of the incident.
In response, the State argued that the Petitioners were charge-sheeted for a very serious offence, and cognizance was taken only after the submission of the charge sheet. The State further contended that all defences raised by the petitioners should be substantiated during the trial through evidence.
The High Court found no ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. The Court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial and expedite it without unnecessary adjournments while dismissing the revision petition.
Case Title: Sudesh Rakesh Tirkey V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 133