Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 211 (JK)

Rahim v. State of J&K

2015-04-23

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Petitioners-accused seek quashment of the order dated 18.01.2014 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur whereby accused have been put to trial for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/147/148/149/109 RPC. It is projected that the material collected during investigation does not, prima-facie, connect the Petitioners No. 2 to 10, in any manner, with the commission of offences whereas as against Petitioner No. 1, some material suggesting commission of offence punishable under Section 304 RPC is available. 2. The report based on which case has been registered as FIR No. 61/2013 P/S, Ramnagar was lodged by Mohammad Sharif alleging therein that he resides at Sunjawani Tehsil Kathua, however, during summer season he shifts to Seoj Dhar Tehsil Ramnagar along with his family members and cattle. On 26th May, 2013, when he along with his family was on way to Seoj Dhar, accused Lal Hussain, Rahim, Yousaf Ali, Mohammad Raju Shapai alias Shapaya sons of Jagoo, Din Mohammad S/o. Shafi residents of Dudu at present Keya Morha Khetriyan Tehsil Ramnagar, armed with Barshi and sticks, with criminal intention and common object, attacked them. Accused Rahim attacked Meherdin, son of the complainant, with Barshi who died on spot while as complainant and his daughters received many injuries. Investigation culminated in filing charge sheet (challan). Case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Udhampur. Finally, on hearing counsel for the accused as well as Public Prosecutor on the question of framing or otherwise of the charge, learned Sessions Judge, in terms of order impugned has framed the charge. 3. The trial before the Court of Sessions is governed by Chapter XXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The requirement of Sections 268 and 269 Cr.P.C. is that the Court is required to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and then to hear the submissions, both of the accused as well as prosecution. If upon such consideration, in the opinion of the Judge there is no sufficient ground, then accused can be discharged for the reasons to be recorded but in case upon such consideration and hearing, learned Judge considers that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, then Court has to frame the charge. If upon such consideration, in the opinion of the Judge there is no sufficient ground, then accused can be discharged for the reasons to be recorded but in case upon such consideration and hearing, learned Judge considers that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, then Court has to frame the charge. The word "ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence" has to be on the basis of the record and the material collected during the investigation. 4. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, roving enquiry into pros and cons is not permissible nor meticulous sifting of the material is required. It is settled that the framing of charge is not an idle formality, Court has to be satisfied that the grounds exist for presuming commission of offence. Viewing the material as has been collected by the investigating agency on the touch stone of the said principles, sufficient grounds existed which has persuaded the trial court to frame the charge and rightly so. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referred various statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 164-A and 161 Cr.P.C. and tried to project inconsistencies and improvements but at the stage of framing of charge, appreciation of such evidence, which is still to stand the test of scrutiny during trial, is not permissible. In case there would have been no material, then in that eventuality framing of charge would be unwarranted. In such a situation, proceedings are required to be truncated right at the stage of framing of the charge so that unnecessarily time of the Court is not wasted and the accused is not un-necessarily dragged. 6. The material as collected by the investigating agency, upon consideration, in the light of the arguments of the counsel for the parties, satisfies the test warranting framing of the charge. Neither abuse of process of the Court nor miscarriage of justice is forthcoming which would persuade the Court to exercise power under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. 7. Time and again it has been made clear that the power under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. shall be exercisable only in exceptional cases with circumspection i.e. where it appears necessary so as to prevent abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Time and again it has been made clear that the power under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. shall be exercisable only in exceptional cases with circumspection i.e. where it appears necessary so as to prevent abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Trial of the case, by the filing of this petition, has un-necessarily been delayed. 8. Viewed thus, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed along with connected Cr.M.P. Trial court record along with copy of this order be sent to the trial court forthwith. The trial court shall expedite the trial of the case.