Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 456 (ALL)

KHUSHI RAM v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-02-05

VIJAY LAKSHMI

body2016
Judgment : Vijay Lakshmi, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 21.2.2002, passed by learned 17th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bulandshahr in S.T. No. 802 of 2001 ( State Vs. Rajendra and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 1999, under Sections 498-A and 307 I.P.C. and of D.P. Act, Police Station Siyana, District Bulandshahr, whereby the learned court below has framed charges against the revisionists. Heard Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionists and learned A.G.A. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the charges framed against the revisionist under Section 147, 302/149, 304-B and 498A I.P.C. and of D.P. Act were not warranted as there is no material on record for framing charge under aforesaid sections. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the statement of Rajkali, mother of Maya, the deceased, before the Magistrate concerned is very specific that the revisionists are not at all involved in the alleged crime. He has further submitted that the revisionists took Maya from Bulandshahar to Delhi and got her admitted in Safdarjung Hospital and there is no eye witness account of the alleged incident to show the participation of revisionists in the alleged crime and the deceased was living separately from her in laws and with her husband. Therefore framing of charges against the revisionists is illegal and perverse. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that the deceased bride has met an unnatural death by burning within 7 years of marriage. Specific roles have been assigned to all the revisionists in the F.I.R. itself which itself is sufficient ground to frame charge. He has further submitted that framing of alternative charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. alongwith Section 304-B I.P.C. is also necessary in wake of guidelines of Apex and the court below has not committed any illegality by framing charges under the aforesaid sections. The impugned order shows that the court below has framed the charges on the basis of the prima facie evidence as available on record. At the stage of framing a charge only prima facie evidence is to be seen and the law is well settled that even a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient enough to frame charge. At the stage of framing a charge only prima facie evidence is to be seen and the law is well settled that even a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient enough to frame charge. The courts are not required to see at this stage whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The defence of separate living as taken by revisionist can not be considered and finally decided at this initial stage of trial. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge. In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI); 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. If on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. In Omwati v. State; AIR 2001 SC 1507 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and farfetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial. In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others; 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others; 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. In wake of the aforesaid legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the prima facie evidence available on record the revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. The revision is accordingly dismissed. ———————