Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1298 (JHR)

Ramu Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

2015-10-15

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2015
ORDER : Learned counsel has submitted that he has removed the defects as pointed out by the office. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda, in S.T. no. 67 of 2013, arising out of G.R. case no. 136 of 2012, whereby the petition for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no ingredient to make out the offence under Section 315 of the Indian Penal Code and neither any material evidence has been collected by the police to make out a case under the aforesaid section as there is no medical report to show that the petitioner had caused abortion of the unborn child of the informant. 4. Heard. On perusal of the order impugned it is explicit that the court below while rejecting the prayer for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has observed as follows:- “On perusal of the L.C.R., I find that similar petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the lower court on 05.02.2013. No fresh material has been brought on record. The submissions made by the learned Defence Counsel and the documents filed on 05.12.2014 may be considered at the time of trial. It cannot be said that there is no material against the accused persons and it is admitted fact that the cognizance against the accused persons under the chargesheeted sections has also been taken by the lower court on 07.01.2013. The order passed by the learned C.J.M. has not been challenged by the learned Defence Counsel before the superior court. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that there is no sufficient material against the accused person to proceed against them as such the petition dated 28.02.2013 filed by the learned Defence Counsel is not maintainable in the eye of law at this stage. Accordingly, it stands rejected.” 5. It is evident that the trial court has passed a non-speaking order and rejected the application only on the ground that cognizance has been taken by the lower court on 07.01.2013 under the charge-sheeted Sections. The order of C.J.M. has not been challenged before the superior court and the court has recorded that it cannot be said that there is no sufficient material against the accused persons to proceed against them. The order of C.J.M. has not been challenged before the superior court and the court has recorded that it cannot be said that there is no sufficient material against the accused persons to proceed against them. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence as required during the trial. However, the trial court can sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose, for satisfying itself that there are material evidence available on record to reasonably connect the accused with the crime. It is evident from the impugned order that there is no discussion of the materials on record to show that the court was satisfied that there was a prima facie case made out to proceed against the accused. Neither has the court recorded its satisfaction as to under which Section a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the petitioners/accused. 6. It is amply clear that the order has been passed without application of the judicial mind to the material on record rather the order has been passed in a mechanical and routine manner. In the given circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. 7. The matter is remitted to the court below to pass a speaking order on the basis of material on record as to under which offence prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused persons, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 8. With the said observation, the revision is hereby allowed to the extent as noted above.