Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 799 (RAJ)

Mehram v. State of Rajasthan

2003-05-23

H.R.PANWAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under section 397/401 Cr.RC. is directed against the order dated 28.6.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar in Sessions Case No. 30/2000 whereby the trial court framed the charge against the petitioner for the offences under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. The accused-petitioner has challenged the order framing charge by this revision petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order impugned dated 28.6.2002. I have also carefully gone through the police investigation papers filed by the investigating Officer under section 173 Cr.P.C. (Challan Papers) and statements of various prosecution witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer as also the post mortem report of deceased Abdul Rehman aged 22 years. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that deceased Abdul Rehman fell himself in the well of the accused-petitioner and committed suicide. He died due to drowning and, therefore, no offence whatsoever is made out against the accused-petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor seriously controverted the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the deceased was taken from his house by the accused-petitioner and thereafter, his dead body was found in the well of the accused-petitioner. There were number of injuries on the person of deceased which is ante mortem as is evident from the "Fard Surat Lash" and the post mortem report of the deceased. The deceased was to get a sizeable amount from the accused- petitioner for the work done by him and on various occasions, deceased made demand for money, which accused failed to pay and the deceased was taken from his house in presence of his brother and mother in the evening of 10.7.2000 and he was found dead in early morning of 11.7.2000 in the well of accused-petitioner situate near the house of accused-petitioner and, therefore, according, to the prosecution, it was the accused and his wife, who killed Abdul Rehman and thereafter, thrown the dead body in the well. 5. I have carefully gone through the first information report and statements of Bundu Shah brother of the deceased, Smt. Jannat mother of deceased, Rustam, Smt. Jetun, Nijamuddin, Basti Shah, Sattar Shah and other witnesses and also perused the post mortem report of the deceased. 5. I have carefully gone through the first information report and statements of Bundu Shah brother of the deceased, Smt. Jannat mother of deceased, Rustam, Smt. Jetun, Nijamuddin, Basti Shah, Sattar Shah and other witnesses and also perused the post mortem report of the deceased. As many as six injuries were found on the person of the deceased including the fracture of right knee of patella etc. All these injuries were ante mortem in nature. The opinion of the Medical Board is that death was caused due to asphyxia. There were injuries on chest, abdomen, hands and on other parts of the body. Injuries appear to be serious in nature. Semi digested food matters were present in the stomach. There was no water in the stomach as per medical report. Thus, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased died due to drowning, appears to be without foundation and prima facie cannot be accepted at this stage. From the statements of various prosecution witnesses, post mortem report and the fact that the deceased was taken by the accused with regard to settlement of money dispute as from the statement it appears that deceased was entitled to sizeable amount from the accused on account of construction work done by the deceased and the fact that within few hours from taking of deceased from his house in presence of his brother, mother and others, he was found dead in the well of the accused-petitioner with the serious injuries, which were ante mortem. The theory of drowning as propounded by the accused and his defence witnesses cannot be prima facie accepted at this stage. 6. It is settled law that at the stage of passing order in terms of sections 227 and 228 Cr.RC., the Court is required to peruse the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is any sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and if after such consideration, the Court is of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the Court may frame a charge against the accused. 7. In Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. 7. In Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. v. State of West Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722 , the Honble Supreme Court held as under: "If the Trial Court decides to frame a charge, there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the Trial Judge has formed the opinion, upon considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. It was further held that there is no legal requirement that the Trial Court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened Trial Courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The times has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the Court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays." 8. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 , the Honble Supreme Court observed as under: "Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that the beginning and the initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the. prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weight in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding the matter u/s. 227 or 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 9. In Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 1999 Cr.L.R. (SC) 499, the Honble Supreme Court held as under: "At the stage of framing charge, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. If on the basis of materials on record the Court could come to the conclusion that the accused would have committed the offence, the Court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed to the trial." 10. In Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and another, (1989) 1 SCC 715 , the Honble Supreme Court has observed that Court should be loth in interfering at the stage of framing of charge against the accused. Self restraint on the part of the High Court should be the real unless there is glaring injustice. 11. In Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 52 , the Honble Supreme Court observed as under: "At the initial stage of framing of charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence. The Court has, therefore, to consider the question of framing the charges on general considerations of the materials placed before it by the investigating agency. At this stage, the truth, veracity and effect of the judgment which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding an accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge. At this stage, the truth, veracity and effect of the judgment which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding an accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge. Even on the basis of a strong suspicion founded on materials before it, the Court can form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in that event be justified in framing the charges against the accused in respect of the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by them." 12. In State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj, AIR 1997 SC 2041 , the Honble Supreme Court held that the law on the subject is now well settled as pointed out in Niranjan Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja, (1990) 4 SCC 76 that at sections 227 and 228 stage, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge, the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. 13. In State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi & Ors. JT 2000 (Suppl. 2) SC 635, the Honble Supreme Court held that the legal position is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge, the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under section 482 seeking for quashing of charge framed against them the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court, a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused, the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record, should not be entertained. 14. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., JT 2001 (9) SC 438, the Honble Supreme Court held as under: "The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers, the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged." 15. In view of the above settled legal principles, it is clear that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to meticulously examine and marshal the material available on record as to whether there is sufficient material against the accused which would ultimately result in conviction. The Court is prima facie required to consider whether there is sufficient material against the accused to presume the commission of the offence. The Court is prima facie required to consider whether there is sufficient material against the accused to presume the commission of the offence. Even strong suspicion about commission of offence is sufficient for framing the charge, the guilt or innocence of the accused has to be determined at the time of conclusion of trial after evidence is adduced and not at the stage of framing of the charge and, therefore, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to undertake an elaborate enquiry for the purpose of sifting and weighing the material. 16. Having considered the instant case in the light of the principles enunciated here in above, I am of the considered opinion that prima facie there is material for presuming that the accused-petitioner has committed the offences as noticed above and, therefore, no error or illegality can be found with the order impugned of the trial court. I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Hence, no case for interference is made out.Consequently, the revision petition fails and is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******