Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 920 (MP)

Rameshchandra v. State of M. P.

2000-08-29

A.K.GOHIL

body2000
The applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 17.2.1997 passed in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1997 by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge. Shajapur whereby framed the charges under Section 304 IPC against the applicant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The submission of Shri Kutumbale is that no charge can be framed against the applicant because neither the said tank belongs to the applicant nor he is responsible for committing any offence. During his arguments he has pointed out the spot map. In reply the submission of Shri Soni. Panel Lawyer for the State is that there are prima facie allegations against this applicant for his involvement in the commission of offence. All the prosecution witnesses Surajsingh, Radheshyam, Babulal, Hemraj, Jagdish, Sajansingh, Ramchandra, Chander and Dhapulal etc. have stated categorically against the present applicant about taking water from the tank with the help of electric motor pump and leaving open electric wire through which electric current was passing in the water of the said tank, including the evidence of doctor according to which the cause of death was Asphyxia due to drowning and the doctor has not ruled out the possibility of electric current in the water. After considering the submissions and material on record, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for interference at the stage of framing of charge because according to prosecution witnesses in their statements have supported the case of the prosecution that though the water tank does not belong to the applicant but the applicant was taking water from the said tank by installing Tillu Electric Pump and there is also prima facie evidence on record that the deceased got electric shock in water and died. There fore prima facie material is available on record against the applicant for framing of charge. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs. West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others, reported in AIR 1980 SC 52 . that "At this stage. even a strong suspicion found on the material placed before the learned trial Court which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charges against accused. West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others, reported in AIR 1980 SC 52 . that "At this stage. even a strong suspicion found on the material placed before the learned trial Court which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charges against accused. Therefore if there is strong suspicion a Court has to frame a charge and it is not expected of the Court at this stage to appreciate the evidence meticulously and discharge the accused". It has been further held in the case of Radhe Shyam v. Kuni Behari and others. reported in AIR 1990 SC 121 . that at the stage of framing of charges scrutinizing the evidence meticulously is not required by the Court but only the material placed by prosecution by way of charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be considered that on the basis of the material collected whether prima facie charge can be framed. In the case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay. reported in 1986 SCC (Cri) 256. it has been further held by the Supreme Court that at this stage Court has to examine the evidence as it stands without rebuttal and come to a conclusion whether on the basis of such evidence the charge should be framed. Considering the aforesaid submissions and looking to the material on record, I am of the view that at this stage the High Court is not required to scrutinize the prosecution evidence available on record meticulously. It is for the trial Court to see as to whether there was a prima facie case to frame a charge and this Court should not usurp the function of the trial Court. According to me, this Court can only interfere when the prosecution case is false frivolous or vexatious or one which can prima facie show that there is no material on record or the trial Court has abused the process of law by framing of charge. The Court framing a charge is not required to appreciate the evidence not on record and arrive at the different conclusion. The Court framing a charge is not required to appreciate the evidence not on record and arrive at the different conclusion. Therefore looking to the material on record it cannot be said that the learned Court below has either acted illegally in framing of charge or has not properly appreciated the material or the case is based on false. frivolous or vexatious material. Therefore looking to the material on record, do not find that this is a fit case for interference in this revision by this High Court. Accordingly revision has no merit and is dismissed. The trial Court snail expedite the trial as early as possible. Record be returned immediately.