Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1714 (BOM)

Satish s/o Nanaji Dhote v. State of Maharashtra

2008-12-05

A.P.BHANGALE

body2008
Judgment: Heard. 2. By this Revision Application, the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned order dated 26.08.2004 passed by the learned 3rd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur, refusing to discharge the Revision-applicant is under challenge. It is contended on behalf of the Revision-applicant that in the course of investigation, statement of one Manoj Pukhraj Jain recorded, only implicated the applicant-Satish, on the ground that he had entered into an altercation at the time of marriage and had snatched away wrist watches belonging to brother of the witness and one Kiran Agrawal and went away. It also appears that the said witness had made a reference to the marriage ceremony and demand for dowry made at the time of solemnizing the marriage and the incident of assault occurred as also robbery of wrist watches. 3. It appears that the learned trial Judge also made a reference to the ruling in Dilawar Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002 Cr.LJ . 980 (SC) in the impugned order. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the said ruling while advancing submissions in support of the Revision Application. It cannot be disputed that in the absence of prima facie case the accused need not be made to face the ordeal of the trial as chances of conviction are extremely remote. Reliance is also placed upon the ruling in Union Bank of India vs. Prafulla Samal and another reported in ( AIR 1979 SC 366 ), indicating the trial Judge has undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not prima facie case against the accused has been made out, whether the material disclosed against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceeding with the trial. The test to determine prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down rule of universal application. The test to determine prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down rule of universal application. The Apex Court also observed that Judge exercising jurisdiction u/s 227 of the Cr.P.C. is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or as mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. 4. Bearing in mind the observations to which reference is made as also settled legal position in this regard, at the stage of framing the charge meticulous examination for consideration of the evidence and material is not necessary because even if there is strong suspicion which lead the Court to feel that there is a ground to proceed against the accused upon belief that the accused has committed offence. It must be treated as sufficient ground to proceed further in the matter to frame charge. In the present case, the material in the form of statement recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of witness Manoj Pukhraj do indicate that he claims to be an eye witness to the incident occurred at the time of marriage ceremony on 22.1.1999. Prima facie, it appears that the incident had occurred as a result of demand made for dowry, which led to quarrel and assault as also robbery. It is specifically alleged by the said witness that Satish (revision-applicant) was very much present at the time of incident of marriage and he had participated in the quarrel and that he had committed robbery of wrist watches belonging to brother of the witness and one Agrawal. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on merits of the said statement treating it as it is, it do give rise to strong suspicion against the applicant/ accused leading one to observe that there is prima facie ground to think that applicant / accused may have committed the office. Therefore, it must be treated as sufficient ground to proceed further in the matter so as to frame charge against the accused, as the accusation at this stage cannot be termed as groundless. 5. For these reasons, the impugned order appears to be legal, proper and correct and needs no interference. Revision Application is dismissed. Therefore, it must be treated as sufficient ground to proceed further in the matter so as to frame charge against the accused, as the accusation at this stage cannot be termed as groundless. 5. For these reasons, the impugned order appears to be legal, proper and correct and needs no interference. Revision Application is dismissed. R & P be sent back to the trial Court.