Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 720 (RAJ)

Chetan Prakash v. The State of Rajasthan

2000-06-02

ASHOK PARIHAR

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - A First Information Report was lodged against the petitioners on 21.11.1996 for an incident alleged to have taken place on the same date. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioners for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 & 336 IPC. Thereafter, after considering the material on record, the trial Court framed charges against the petitioners under sections 148, 302, 302/149, 323 & 323/149-IPC vide order dated 31.8.1998. The above order dated 31.8.1998 framing charges against the petitioners is under challenge in the present revision petition by the petitioners with a further prayer for quashing the entire proceedings against the petitioners in the Sessions Case No. 14/1997, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake/District Jaipur. 2. Mr. Dhankar, while relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors. reported in AIR 1977 SC page 1489 , State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors. reported in 1997(1) Crimes page 275 & State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari & Ors. reported in 2000 Cr.L.J. page 944 , has assailed the impugned order of the trial Court mainly on the ground that no reasons have been recorded by the trial Court while framing charges against the petitioners under different Sections. It has further been alleged that as per the Post Mortem Report there were only four injuries on the body of the deceased, whereas all the six petitioners have been charged under section 302 IPC, as such, the charges have not been framed by the trial Court properly. 3. Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned order has submitted that there has been enough material before the trial Court for framing charges against the petitioners and no interference is called for by this Court at this stage. Mr. Mitra has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya reported in (1990) 4 SCC page 76 and also the case of Priya Sharan Maharaj (supra). 4. After having considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the impugned order dated 31.8.1998 as also the original record of the trial Court as summoned by the Court on 16.2.1999 as well as the judgments cited at the bar. 4. After having considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the impugned order dated 31.8.1998 as also the original record of the trial Court as summoned by the Court on 16.2.1999 as well as the judgments cited at the bar. 5. It is a well settled proposition of law and consistent view of the Apex Court as well, that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has only to prima fade consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for conviction of the accused. What the Court has to consider at the stage of framing of the charge is whether the version of the person complaining together with his/her explanation is prima facie believable or not. It is only after appreciation of evidence at the final stage that the trial Court can decide as to whether the charge framed against the accused is made out or not. 6. After having carefully considered the material on record, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find no error or illegality in the impugned order of the trial Court so as to call for any interference of this Court in the present revision petition. 7. Accordingly, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. 8. The charges were framed on 1.8.1998. This Court vide order dated 16.2.1999 had called for the record of the trial Court. The whole trial is held up since then. The incident took place in the year 1996, as such, the record of the trial Court be sent back immediately and the trial Court is also directed to expedite the trial.Revision dismissed. *******