Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1527 (RAJ)

Basti Ram v. State

2006-05-05

HARBANS LAL

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. has been filed by thirteen accused petitioners whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror, District Alwar has framed charges against the accused- petitioners for offences under Sections 147,148, 323, 324, 325, 308 and 452 read with Section 149, IPC. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that complainant Mamchand made a written report at P.S. Behror with the allegations that at about 8.30 p.m. on 26.2.2003 the complainant and his family members were in their house. The accused petitioners barged into their house all of a sudden and started abusing and beating them, as a result of which Dayaram, Balram, Santosh, Suman and Lekhram sustained injuries. An FIR being No. 82/2003 was registered on the basis of the aforesaid written report for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 308 and 452, IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror for the aforesaid offences. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 31.5.2004, the learned Trial Court after hearing arguments framed charges as against the accused persons as stated hereinabove. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed this revision petition challengir, the order of framing of charge. 4. It is contended that no offences under Sections 452 and 308, Indian Penal Code are made out and the order of the learned Court below is erroneous in the circumstances of the case as the complainant party was aggressor. So, the accused persons ought to have been discharged. It is also submitted that the complainant has himself admitted that there was an enmity between him and Dayaram on account of elections and there is no material to show that the accused had knowledge or intention to cause death of any person of the complainant party.The learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned Counsel for the complainant have both refuted the aforesaid contentions and have supported the order of the learned Court below. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have perused the relevant materials placed before me. 6. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have perused the relevant materials placed before me. 6. It is well settled that at the stage of charge, the Judge is not obliged to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if provided, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. 7. In the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, AIR 1980 SC 52 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has given the guidelines for the High Courts as well as the lower Courts while dealing with matters of framing charges and has held as under: "The standard test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228. At this stage, even a very strong 'suspicion' founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence." 8. In the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, reported in AIR 1979 SC 366 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has further held as under: "Under Section 228 the Court has to see whether there is prima facie case against the accused-petitioner or not and evidence has to be looked into for very limited purpose at the stage of charge." 9. In the case of Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari, reported in AIR 1990 SC 121 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "At the stage of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of evidence is not required." 10. In the case of State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari & Ors., reported in I (2000) SLT 377=1 (2000) CCR 93 (SC)=2000 Cr. LR (SC) 407 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, as under: "It is settled 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. 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 a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. It is apparent that the entire approach of the High Court is illegal and erroneous. From the reasons recorded by the High Court, it appears that instead of considering the prima facie case, the High Court has appreciated and weighed the materials on record for coming to the conclusion that charge against the respondents could not have been framed." 11. In another case of State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi & Ors., reported in VII (2000) SLT 506=IV (2000) CCR 154 (SC)= (2000) 8 SCC 239 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed, as under: "High Court's power to quash the charge should not be exercised except for strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and in order to avoid the abuse of process of the Court the charge needed to be quashed. High Court should not shift the available medical evidence and quash the charge." 12. In another case of Smt. Om Wati v. State, reported in II (2001) SLT 796=II (2001) CCR 43 (SC)= AIR 2001 SC 1507 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, as under: "Observations and opinion incorporated in post-mortem report cannot be ground to deprive the prosecution from proving that accused was guilty of offence and order discharging accused on that basis in respect of offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was found illegal. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing of charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons." 13. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing of charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons." 13. In another case of Ram Kumar Luharia v. State of M.P., reported in I (2001) SLT 316=1 (2001) CCR 60 (SC)=JT 2001 (2) SC 79 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, as under: "At the stage of charge, evidence could not be weighed." 14. Thus, in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments submission which has been made by the learned Counsel for the accused petitioners cannot be appreciated at this stage. This apart, the revisional powers of the High Court should not be exercised unless there exists manifest illegality in the order or there is grave miscarriage of justice or there is glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on the point of law, etc. 15. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the order does not suffer from any one or more of these infirmities and it cannot be said that the charges are groundless. 16. Consequently, this revision petition being absolutely devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed and the order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror, District Alwar is hereby affirmed.Revision Petition dismissed. *******