V.D.Chaturvedi - (1.) -Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, for the revisionist and Sri V. N. Shukla, A.G.A.
(2.) THESE are two revisions. One is against the order dated 16.8.1988, passed in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1988 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed to frame the charge under Sections 353 and 302, I.P.C. where as Revision No. 1259 of 1988 is against the framing of charge under Sections 353 and 302, I.P.C. The brief facts giving rise to these revisions are that an F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist Narendra Kumar and his father Puran Chandra to the effect that in the intervening night of December 1/2 of 1986 at about 5 a.m. the police raided at the house of Puran Chandra to arrest him in another case. Puran Chandra resisted his arrest and asked his son Narendra Kumar, the revisionist, to fire at the police party ; that the revisionist Narendra Kumar consequently fired at the police party causing firearm wound to constable Rajendra, who later succumbed to his injury. The revisionist Narendra Kumar and one Omi fled away. The police arrested Puran Chandra on the spot recovering his licensed gun and cartridges. The revisionist moved an application in the trial court for his discharge on the ground that there is no evidence against him ; that the conviction is not possible against him ; that the identification proceedings were not conducted by the police and that no police personnel knew the revisionist Narendra Kumar from before the occurrence. The trial court dismissed the application for discharge and directed to frame the charge for the offence under Section 353/302, I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved these two revisions have been filed. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist was not known to the members of the police party and the revisionist was not arrested at the spot ; hence identification proceedings were a must ; that there is no sufficient evidence warranting the conviction of the revisionist and that there are contradictions in the statements of the police witnesses.
(3.) THE contradictions, if any, in the statements of the witnesses do not entitle the accused for his discharge. THE accused can be discharged only if the trial Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. THE trial Judge cannot meticulously scrutinize the evidence for the purposes of discharging the accused. Section 227, Cr. P.C. empowers the trial court that if he is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the trial Judge is bound to frame the charge. If the evidence is of such nature that in case it goes unrebutted, the conviction is possible, in that situation it is incumbent upon the trial court to frame the charge. In the case in hand there are eye-witnesses' evidence that the revisionist fired at Constable Rajendra with the intention to commit his murder. Constable Rajendra sustained firearm injury to which he succumbed. Nothing else was required to frame the charge. The trial court committed no error which may warrant interference in the impugned orders. The identification in case where the accused is named, is not necessary.;