Brief Facts
- The Petitioner lodged an FIR alleging that his son, Rajendra Kumar, was shot and killed by Vinod @ Chhagan, Mansukh Ram, and Dariya Singh due to previous enmity arising from a money dispute. The incident occurred near the Petitioner’s shop, where the Petitioner and his family claimed to have witnessed the shooting. The accused allegedly fled the scene after firing multiple shots on deceased.
- Although multiple eyewitnesses, including the complainant and family members, named all three accused in their statements, the police filed a charge sheet only against Vinod @ Chhagan under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3/25, 27 of the Arms Act, and submitted a Negative Final Report exonerating the other two accused i.e. Mansukh Ram and Dariya Singh primarily on the basis of Vinod’s confessional statement and mobile location data.
- Subsequently, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, seeking cognizance against Mansukh and Dariya as well. The Trial Court, however, dismissed the application after relying on the conclusion of the investigation officer and without due consideration of the eyewitness statements. Hence, the present Revision Petition.
Issues
- Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to take cognizance against persons named by eyewitnesses, solely on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused and mobile location data?
Held
- High Court allowed the revision petition and remanded back the case to the Trial Court with the direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The findings of the Court are as under :
- The Police while submitting FR against respondents No.2 & 3 has given finding that the no call details of accused-respondents were available and their location is also not matched with the location of incident. In the interrogation note of main accused Vinod @ Chhagan, he himself admitted that he shot upon deceased Rajendra and at that time, no other person accompanied him. The Police, relying on the confessional statement of main accused, has exonerated the accused-respondents No.2 & 3.
- In the opinion of this court, the Police has submitted the FR against respondents No.2 & 3 only on the basis of confessional statement given by main accused Vinod @ Chhagan, which is not sufficient to reach at such conclusion despite there being specific allegation levelled against them by the eye-witnesses of the case and such finding of Police is absolutely illegal.
- At the stage of taking cognizance, meticulous discussions of the evidence is not necessary and if there is sufficient prima facie evidence against an accused, then the court should have summoned the accused for trial. The trial court has passed the order impugned in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. The impugned order being mechanical in nature deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice
Relevant Para No.
- 6 and 7