Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 70 (RAJ)

Govind Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-10

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.09.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 34/2004, whereby the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149, IPC. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. On an FIR, the police registered the Crime Report bearing FIR No. 04/2004, Police Station, Kuchera. In the FIR, it was alleged that in the intervening night of 9/10th January, 2004, certain persons entered into the house of Ms. Kamla and assulted Indra Ram Bawari. Indra Ram succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. He was a member of Scheduled Caste. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the FIR, the petitioner has not been named out. However, certain prosecution witnesses, viz. Kumbha Ram, Ram Deo and Kheraj Ram etc. have specifically stated that present petitioner Govind Singh was also present alongwith other co-accused causing injuries to deceased Indra Ram and was seen coming out from the house of Ms. Kamla where Indra Ram was said to have been murdered. 4. The trial Court found a prima facie case against the petitioner and other co-accused and came to the conclusion that there is a ground to presume that the petitioner has committed the offence. 5. 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 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 convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then the charges have to be framed, as held by the Honble Apex Court in State of M .P. vs. S.B. Johari & Ors., 2000 CrLR 407 (SC). 6. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then the charges have to be framed, as held by the Honble Apex Court in State of M .P. vs. S.B. Johari & Ors., 2000 CrLR 407 (SC). 6. In State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi & Ors., 2000 (8) SCC 239 , the Honble Supreme Court has held 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. 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. 7. In Ram Kumar Laharia vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, JT 2001 (2) SC 79, the Honble Apex Court held that at the stage of framing the charge, the evidence cannot be weighed. 8. In State of Orissa vs. Debenedra Nath Padhi, JT 2004 (10) SC 303, a Three Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court held that at the time of framing the charge or taking cognizance, the accused has no right to produce any material. The Apex Court further observed that the only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond it. The Apex Court further held as under:- "At the stage of framing the charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and nothing more. The expression hearing the submissions of the accused cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At the stage of framing of charge, hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police." 9. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid ground to challenge the impugned order for framing the charge, raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is not worth consideration at this stage in view of the limited power of judicial review available to this Court under revisional jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid ground to challenge the impugned order for framing the charge, raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is not worth consideration at this stage in view of the limited power of judicial review available to this Court under revisional jurisdiction. At this stage, the evidence on record cannot be evaluated meticulously. 10. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any error or illegality in the order impugned. The revision petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly.