Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 22 (PNJ)

Navneet @ Nitu v. State of Haryana

2013-01-10

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The epitome of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of complaint of complainant Himmat son of Ram Kumar, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.63 dated 12.3.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 364 read with section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani. 2. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) (Annexure P9) against the accused under sections 120-B, 364, 304 and 376(2)(g) read with section 34 IPC. Consequently, the case was committed for trial to the Court of Session by the Magistrate. 3. Taking into consideration the report u/s 173 Cr.PC and other documents appended therewith, the trial Judge came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out and charge sheeted the accused for the commission of offences punishable under sections 120-B, 364, 376(2)(g) and 304 read with section 34 IPC, by virtue of impugned order and separate charge sheet dated 22.8.2012 and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. 4. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the petitioners-accused straightway jumped to prefer the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned indicated order and charge-sheet, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record and the legal position with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the arguments of the learned counsel that all the facts mentioned in the final police report (challan) are not included in the charge sheet and since there is no (sufficient) legal evidence on record, so, the petitioners-accused could not be charge-sheeted for the pointed offences, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that the trial Court, considering all the material/evidence appended with the final police report, came to a definite conclusion that a prima facie case for framing charges against the accused for the commission of offences in question is made out. 7. As is evident from the record that the trial Court, considering all the material/evidence appended with the final police report, came to a definite conclusion that a prima facie case for framing charges against the accused for the commission of offences in question is made out. Besides other oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the complicity of the petitioners-accused is clearly borne out from the confessional statements and recovery memos (Ex.P2 to Ex.P7). What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the accused have also been charge sheeted for hatching a criminal conspiracy, helping and adding the other accused, who committed the heinous indicated offences. The offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B IPC is an independent offence and some general evidence pertaining to the conspiracy would be sufficient, to form part of the charge of conspiracy in the charge-sheet. As a matter of fact, some connecting link or connecting factor somewhere here and there in the evidence would be good enough to frame the charge. The stage of framing of charge and the stage to establish the guilt of conspiracy after the trial cannot possibly be equated and placed at par. There is a very less possibility of direct evidence and the evidence of hatching such criminal conspiracy has to be gathered from variety of facts, situations and circumstances, oozing out from the evidence brought on record by the prosecution at the time of final conclusion of the trial. The reliance in this regard can be placed to a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Hardeo Singh Versus State of Bihar and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2245. 8. Not only 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 or not and the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence sufficient for conviction, at this stage. 9. A similar question was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case State of M.P. Versus S.B. Johari and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 665. Having interpreted the provisions of Sections 227/228 of the Cr.P.C., it was ruled 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. Having interpreted the provisions of Sections 227/228 of the Cr.P.C., it was ruled 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 conviction of 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. 10. Finding no alternative, the next celebrated argument of the learned counsel that as the impugned order of framing of charge and charge-sheet are non-speaking orders and the result of non-application of mind, therefore, the same deserve to be set aside, lacks merit as well. 11. It is now well-settled legal proposition of law that, if the trial Court decides to frame the charge, there is no requirement to include all the facts contained in the final police report (challan), as urged on behalf of petitioners-accused or that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he had to do so. The framing of charge itself is a prima facie order, indicative of the fact that the trial Judge has formed the opinion upon considering the police report, other documents and after hearing both the parties that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, as contemplated under Sections 225 to 228 Cr.P.C. This matter is no more res integra and is now well-settled. 12. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case U.P. Pollution Control Board Versus Mohan Meakins Limited and others, 2000(3) SCC 745 , wherein it was ruled as under(para6):- “6. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court it has been pointed out that the legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of a complaint without issuing process. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons vide Kanti Bhadra Shah and another Versus State of West Bengal, 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 407 : 2000(1) SCC 722 . There is no such legal requirement imposed on a magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons vide Kanti Bhadra Shah and another Versus State of West Bengal, 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 407 : 2000(1) SCC 722 . The following passage will be apposite in this context: “If there is no legal requirement that the trial Court should write on order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial Courts be further burdened with such an extra work? The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the Court procedures and to chalk out measures to overt all (sic) causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages, the snail-paced progress of proceedings in trial Courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages of the trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Therefore, if the totality of entire material/evidence brought on record and the legal proposition are put together, then to me, the conclusion is inescapable that there is sufficient material on record and the trial Judge has rightly framed the pointed charges against the accused as well, through the medium of impugned order/charge-sheet dated 22.8.2012. Hence, the contrary arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. Moreover, such order/charge-sheet cannot legally be set aside, while exercising the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, unless the same are totally illegal and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners, so, the impugned order/charge-sheet deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 15. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners, so, the impugned order/charge-sheet deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. 16. Needless to mention that, nothing recorded hereinabove, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present revision petition in this relevant direction.