At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence as available on record is to be considered by the court concerned at the initial stage of framing charges.
8. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, MANU/SC/1010/2004 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415 : (AIR 2005 SC 359), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge".
9. In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI), MANU/SC/2283/2007 : 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514: (AIR 2007 SC 2149), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. If on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial".
10. In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others, MANU/SC/8097/2008 : 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87 : (AIR 2009 SC 9), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge". In Omwati v. State, MANU/SC/0178/2001 : AIR 2001 SC 1507, the Hon'ble Apex Court has restricted the High Court from interfering by holding that "the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far-fetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons."
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Sharma v. C.B.I. MANU/SC/0336/2000 : AIR. 2000 SC 2335, has held that "at the stage of 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not open to the Sessions Judge to weigh the pros and cons whether improbability and then proceed to discharge the accused holding the said statements existing in the case diary as unreliable".
12. In Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of Bengal, MANU/SC/0004/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 522, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "the discharge order must contain reasons but an order of framing charge cannot be quashed merely because it does not contain reasons".
13. In State of J. & K. v. Sudarshan Khakkar, MANU/SC/0383/1995 : AIR 1995 SC 1954 and in Rukmani Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar, MANU/SC/8100/2008 : AIR 2009 SC 1013, it has been held that "no weight is to be attached to the probable defence of the accused and at the time of framing of the charge, the Court has to confine its attention to documents referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. only".
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Criminal Revision No. 138 of 2013
Decided On: 28.08.2015
Raju Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors.
State of U.P. and Ors.
Coram:Vijay Lakshmi, J.
Citation:2016 CRLJ(NOC)324 ALL
1. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 988 of 2012 (State v. Raju alias Raj Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 225 of 2012, under Sections 307 and 452, I.P.C., P.S. Mussoorie, District Ghaziabad, whereby the discharge application moved by the revisionist has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.GA.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order is illegal because no offence under section 452, I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist. Learned counsel has submitted that for establishing an offence under Section 307, I.P.C., there must be some motive while in the present case there is no motive as such no case under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party No. 2 who is the first informant, has stated before the I.O. that he had sustained two injuries but in the medical report only one injury has been mentioned which shows that no occurrence took place as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next contended that in the F.I.R. the name of one Yashpal is mentioned as eye witness but his statement has neither been recorded by the I.O. nor his name as a witness has been mentioned in the charge-sheet therefore the observations made by the court below while passing the impugned order are incorrect, baseless and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
3. On the aforesaid grounds it is prayed by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order dated 20.10.2012, passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside.
4. Learned A.GA. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and has contended that the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application, moved by the revisionist, and there is no illegality in it.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the considered view that the discharge application moved by the revisionist before the court below has rightly been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad by the order impugned.
6. The Sessions Judge has the power to discharge the accused in the following circumstances;
"A-where the evidence produced is not sufficient,
B- where there is no legal ground for proceeding against the accused,
C-where the prosecution is clearly barred by limitation, or
D-where he is precluded from proceeding because of a prior judgment of High Court."
7. The impugned order shows that the court below has elaborately discussed in it, the prima facie evidence available on record. At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence as available on record is to be considered by the court concerned at the initial stage of framing charges.
8. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, MANU/SC/1010/2004 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415 : (AIR 2005 SC 359), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge".
9. In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI), MANU/SC/2283/2007 : 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514: (AIR 2007 SC 2149), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. If on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial".
10. In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others, MANU/SC/8097/2008 : 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87 : (AIR 2009 SC 9), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge". In Omwati v. State, MANU/SC/0178/2001 : AIR 2001 SC 1507, the Hon'ble Apex Court has restricted the High Court from interfering by holding that "the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far-fetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons."
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Sharma v. C.B.I. MANU/SC/0336/2000 : AIR. 2000 SC 2335, has held that "at the stage of 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not open to the Sessions Judge to weigh the pros and cons whether improbability and then proceed to discharge the accused holding the said statements existing in the case diary as unreliable".
12. In Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of Bengal, MANU/SC/0004/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 522, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "the discharge order must contain reasons but an order of framing charge cannot be quashed merely because it does not contain reasons".
13. In State of J. & K. v. Sudarshan Khakkar, MANU/SC/0383/1995 : AIR 1995 SC 1954 and in Rukmani Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar, MANU/SC/8100/2008 : AIR 2009 SC 1013, it has been held that "no weight is to be attached to the probable defence of the accused and at the time of framing of the charge, the Court has to confine its attention to documents referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. only".
14. In wake of the aforesaid legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the prima facie evidence available on record against the revisionist, discussed in detail by the court below, the revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed. The revision is accordingly dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment