Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1235 (RAJ)

Onkar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-27

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") is directed against the Order dated 06.05.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Pali, Camp Jaitaran (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter), whereby the trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307 read with Section 149, 325, 323 read with Section 149, IPC. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that while granting bail to the petitioner, it was observed by the trial Court that prima facie the offence punishable under Section 325, IPC is made out, meaning thereby that this observation, while considering the bail application, amounts to a finding of the trial Court itself that no offence punishable under Section 307, IPC is made out. It has further been contended that the injuries suffered by complainant Suraj Mal are not dangerous to life and, therefore, no offence under Section 307, IPC is made out. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and submitted that there is sufficient ground to presume that the petitioners have committed the offences, for which charges have been framed against them on the basis of material placed before the trial Court by the police after investigation. 4. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that at the time of framing the charges, the trial Court has applied its mind to the challan papers, including Parcha-Bayan of injured Suraj Mal and the statements of other witnesses, viz. Smt. Prem Devi, Laluram, Sayari, Miss Neetu, Miss Santosh, Hajari Ram, Chela Ram, Ashok Nath and Baldev Ram, and came to the conclusion that from the statements of these witnesses and the injury reports of injured persons, prima facie the offences charged-with are made out against the petitioners. 5. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners have not placed on record any such order passed by the Court below, while considering the bail application filed by the petitioners, holding therein that prima facie no offence under Section 307, IPC is made out against the accused-petitioners. Mere an argument in this regard, without there being any foundation, cannot be accepted. Mere an argument in this regard, without there being any foundation, cannot be accepted. There is no such order on record, by which it had been held by the trial Court that no offence under Section 307, IPC is made out against the petitioners. Moreso, at the stage of trial, such a finding is unwarranted when the matter is at the investigation stage. 6. To frame a charge for the offence under Section 307,IPC, it is not necessary that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. What is required by law is that there should have been an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof . In State of Maharasthra vs. Balram Bama Patil & Ors., 1983(2) SCC 28 , the Honble Supreme Court held that it is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307, IPC if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof . The Apex Court further held that it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. Same view has been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in Girja Shankar vs. State of U.P., JT 2004 (2) SC 140; Bappa alias Bapu vs. State of Maharashstra, AIR 2004 SC 4119 ; Vasant Vithu Jadhav vs. State of Maharashstra, 2004 (9) SCC 31 ; and R. Prakash vs. State of Karnataka, 2004 (9) SCC 27 . In State of Maharashtra vs. Kashirao & Ors., 2003 (10) SCC 434 , the Honble Apex Court held that for application of Section 307, IPC, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used are relevant for constituting an offence under Section 307, IPC. 7. It is settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground, on the basis of material placed before it by the police, i.e. challan papers, for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. 7. It is settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground, on the basis of material placed before it by the police, i.e. challan papers, for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. At the stage of framing the charge, the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence meticulously and arrive at a conclusion that the material produced are sufficient, or not, for convicting the accused. In State of M.P. vs. S.B. Johari & Ors., 2000 CrLR. SC 407, the Honble Supreme Court held that if the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then the charges have to be framed. A Three Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court, in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, JT 2004 (10) SC 303, held that at the stage of framing the charge, roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible. In State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 , the Honble Supreme Court observed that 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. In Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 1999 CrLR (SC) 499, the Honble Apex Court held that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court is not expected to go deep in to the probative value of the materials on record and 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. In State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj, AIR 1977 SC 2041 , the Honble Apex Court held that 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. In State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi & Ors., JT 2000 (Supp.2) SC 635, the Apex Court held that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie a case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused. Jo 8. In view of the above settled legal principles, it is clear that at the stage of framing the 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. 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 the trial after evidence is adduced and not at the stage of framing the charge and, therefore, at the stage of framing the charge, the Court is not required to undertake an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of sifting and weighing the material. 9. So far as quashing of the charge is concerned, it is settled proposition of law that the High Courts power to quash the charge should not be exercised except for strong reasons like interest of justice and avoiding abuse of process of the Court, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi & Ors., 2000 (8) SCC 239 . In Smt. Omwati vs. State, AIR 2001 SC 1507 , the Honble Supreme Court held that the High Court should not interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far-fetched reasons. In Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr., 1989 (1) SCC 715 , the Honble Supreme Court has observed that the Court should be loth in interfering at the stage of framing the charge against the accused and self-constraint on the part of the High Court should be the real unless there is glaring injustice. In Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr., 1989 (1) SCC 715 , the Honble Supreme Court has observed that the Court should be loth in interfering at the stage of framing the charge against the accused and self-constraint on the part of the High Court should be the real unless there is glaring injustice. In Radhey Shyam vs. Kunj Behari & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 121 , the High Court quashed the charge on the ground of inadequacy of evidence and a Three Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court set-aside the order of the High Court and held that at the stage of framing the charge, meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by the High Court was not required. Same view was taken by the Honble Supreme Court in Mohd. Akbar Dar & Ors. vs. State of J & K, AIR 1981 SC 1548 . In Shera Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (1) CrLR (Raj) 580, this Court held that it is not safe to take out any of the accused persons at this stage. There are two sets of witnesses and at this stage, it is difficult to say that who participated and who did not participate. Things can be threshed only during trial and, thus, the High Court should not interfere in the order of framing the charge. In Jagdish & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (1) CrLR (Raj) 397, this Court held that if there is prima facie evidence against the accused to put them on trial, the High Court should be slow in interfering with the order of framing charge in revisional jurisdiction. In Umesh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (3) RCrD, 142 (Raj), this Court held that at the stage of framing charge, meticulous examination of evidence is not necessary and if there are prima facie evidence for framing the charge, the High Court should not interfere in the order of the trial Court framing the charge. In Prakash & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (2) RCrD 444 (Raj), this Court held that if the trial Court, on the basis of material on record and upon hearing the parties, comes to the conclusion that there is ground to presume that the accused have committed the offence and frames charge, the High Court should not interfere therein. 10. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (2) RCrD 444 (Raj), this Court held that if the trial Court, on the basis of material on record and upon hearing the parties, comes to the conclusion that there is ground to presume that the accused have committed the offence and frames charge, the High Court should not interfere therein. 10. In view of the legal position culled out from the decisions cited hereinabove and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the opinion that the trial Court was justified in framing the charges against the petitioners for the offences referred to hereinabove. Under these circumstances, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned framing charge. 11. Consequently, the revision petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly. The stay petition also stands disposed of .