Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1426 (HP)

Vikas Verma v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2017-12-20

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2017
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs. "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed. Order dated 30.5.2017 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) Shimla in Case No. 14-S/7 of 2015 and the consequent charge framed may kindly be set aside and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be charged under section 304 Indian Penal Code in place of section 302 Indian Penal Code." 2. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General, in my considered view, the impugned order calls for no interference. section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers upon a Judge the right to frame charges, if after such consideration and hearing, as is envisaged under Chapter 18 of the Cr.P.C, said Judge is of the opinion that there is ground of presuming that the accused had committed an offence. 3. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the learned Judge after taking into consideration the submissions of the prosecution, in consonance with section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has framed charges against the accused in exercise of powers so conferred under section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. The contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the charges stand framed by taking into consideration material which cannot be relied upon in the course of trial and further that the impugned order stands passed with a pre-conceived mind and depicts lack of application of mind, in my considered view, are not sustainable. Impugned order demonstrates that the same is a reasoned order, wherein learned Judge has assigned reasonings and substantiated them as to why it was framing the charges, which stand framed against the accused. The contention of the petitioner that the charges so framed are not even in harmony with the prayers so made by the prosecution is also of no assistance to the petitioner because what charges have to be framed is the discretion of the Court and it is not as if the Court is to frame the charges which prosecution may call upon the Court to frame. The contention of the learned Counsel that the impugned order reflects predetermination of the issue by the learned trial Court is also incorrect because the charges so framed shall have to be proved by the prosecution by adducing evidence before the Court concerned. 5. It is settled law that for the purpose of determining as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the Court possesses wider discretion, in the exercise of which, it can determine the question whether the material on record is such, on the basis of which, conviction can be reasonably said to be possible. It is further settled law that Court is not expected to frame charge mechanically but has to exercise its judicial mind to the given facts of the case and, in my considered view, there is due exercise of judicial mind as far as framing of charges in the present case is concerned. It is further settled law that even strong suspicion which is rounded upon the materials and presumptive material would enable the Court in framing the charge against the accused though it is not open to the Court at said stage to evaluate material to bring home the guilt of the accused. 6. It has been held by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah and Another vs. State of W.B., (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 722, that in exercise of its powers under section 228 of Cr.P.C., 1973 a Judge is not to record reasons for framing charge against the accused. It is not the case of the petitioner in the present case that no proper hearing was given to him at the time of framing of charges. 7. Therefore, in view of above discussion, in my considered view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to forthwith return the records of the case to the learned trial Court. Parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 15.01.2018. 8. The criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.