JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners, who have been charged under Section 302/34 RPC, have filed the present petition for quashing of the charges. 2. In the petition, it has been stated that the order impugned is against the facts of the case and relevant provisions of law. The whole story of the prosecution is circumventing on an alleged fact of the occurrence that in order to avoid imminent loss of loaded vegetables in their truck, the petitioners requested the police/naka party to leave their truck for Srinagar but when the naka party refused them, the petitioners hit the barricade installed on the road as a result of which one Constable Sanjeev Kumar died. From the perusal of the facts of the case, it is evident that offence under Sections 304, 304-A can be made out, but the Court below has wrongly framed the charge under Section 302 RPC. Even if the death has been caused by the act of petitioners, that too has been caused without any pre-meditation, so offence under Section 302 RPC, is not made out. 3. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the grounds taken in the petition, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of framing of charge. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava vs. State of Gujarat, (2018) 4 SCC 329 , judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled Salinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2008 Cri. LJ 602 and judgment of Bombay High Court in case titled Salman Salim Khan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 359. 4. From perusal of the order impugned, the prosecution story is that on 14.01.2017 Constable Ajeet Kumar Belt No. 135/LSW presented a written docket in Police Station Udhampur addressed by In-charge Naka point Jakheni, Udhampur, Head Constable Parshotam Kumar No. 25 NHW to SHO Police Station Udhampur with a prayer for registration of an FIR against accused named therein, with the allegations that during naka checking at traffic naka point Jakheni at around 22:45 hours a truck no. JK09A-5301 loaded with vegetables and on its way from Jammu to Srinagar on reaching Naka point was signaled by naka party to halt and the driver of the truck was directed and made to park the vehicle on the side of the road and, the driver and the inmate of the truck were informed that as per the directions of the higher authorities the movement of heavy vehicles has been suspended on Jammu Srinagar National Highway and they cannot be allowed to proceed ahead to Srinagar, but the driver of the truck and the other inmate disclosed to the naka party that the truck is loaded with vegetables which are perishable items and, therefore, they have no other option but to proceed and transport the loaded vegetables to its desired destination as early as possible in order to avoid any imminent loss. That the driver of the truck disclosed his name as Mohd. Maqbool Dar son of Abdul Ahad Dar resident of Charakot Lolab District Kupwara whereas the other inmate of truck claimed to be the owner of the said vehicle and disclosed his name as Reyaz Ahmed son of Fateh Mohammad Malik resident of Kohnu district Bandipora. That the naka party pleaded their inability to allow the accused persons to proceed to Srinagar whereupon the driver of the truck lost his temper and insisted that he will go to Srinagar and in case any police official on duty dared to stop him he would crush him under the truck and the other inmate of the truck claiming to be its owner also endorsed the stand of the truck driver and threatened the naka party. That the naka party tried to persuade the accused persons to obey the orders of their superiors, but after sometime the driver of the truck abruptly started the vehicle and dashed against the barricade put up by the naka party at the naka point where SGCt. Sanjeev Kumar was stationed to stop the speeding and defiant drivers and as a result of which the truck crushed the above named SGCt leading to his death on spot. 5. The court below after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties has held that offences under Sections 302 RPC is made out and accordingly accused/petitioners have been charged under Section 302/34 RPC. 5. The court below after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties has held that offences under Sections 302 RPC is made out and accordingly accused/petitioners have been charged under Section 302/34 RPC. The operative portion of the order impugned is reads as under: “The investigating agency during the course of investigation have also got recorded the statements of complainant, Parshotam Kumar, Constable Amit Kumar, Shakoor Hussain and SGCt Parbhat Singh through a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. The statements recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. under law enjoy much evidentiary value than the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as these statements are made on oath before a Judicial Magistrate. All these witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. have stated that the accused defiantly refused to obey the orders of traffic party on spot and despite being requested by the police officials on duty both the accused openly declared that come what may they would not obey the orders of the traffic officials on duty at naka point and in case any of the officials tried to stop them, he would be crushed under the truck and that in order to accomplish their evil design the accused no. 1 abruptly and furiously started the vehicle and speedingly and intentionally dashed it against the barricade on spot unmindful of the presence of deceased SGCt. Sanjeev Kumar close to the barricade and the imminent threat to his life and as a result of which the truck hit the barricade and the deceased causing his death on spot instantaneously. Therefore, it is manifestly clear that accused intended to cause his death by crushing him under the truck and the act of accused is covered by clause 1 of Section 300 RPC punishable u/s 302 RPC. Even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that accused had no requisite intention to cause death of deceased on duty the act of the accused is squarely covered by clause fourth of Section 300 RPC. Under the fourth clause of section 300 death must be caused by doing an act with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and the act is committed without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder depends upon the degree of risk to human life. If death is a likely result, it is culpable homicide while if it is most probable result, it is murder. After going through the evidence collected by the investigating agency in general and the statements of these four prosecution witnesses in particular, I am of the opinion that the accused had the requisite intention to cause the death of the deceased and the accused had the full knowledge of the consequences, which would ensue from their act of driving the vehicle rashly and furiously towards the barrier and dashing the truck against it where the deceased was standing in discharge of his official duty and causing his death on spot. Having regard to the material available on record and referred to hereinabove, I am of the opinion that a prima facie case exists under Section 302/34 RPC against the accused persons, which warrant their trial for the aforesaid offences. The accused are accordingly liable to be charged u/s 302/34 RPC. The objection and argument of counsel for the accused to be contrary is accordingly repelled.” 6. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case and the order impugned, it is evident that the Court below has passed the order after appreciating the evidence collected by the prosecution during the course of the investigation. In AIR 2014 SC 1106 in case titled Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it has been held as under:- “(A) Code of criminal procedure - section 482 - instead of considering prima-facie case- High court appreciating and weighing the materials on record - concluding that charge sheet could not have been filed against accused and further, no charges could have been framed - virtually acting as an appellant court - approach illegal and erroneous. A Constitution Bench of this Court reiterated a similar view in CBI & Ors. v. Keshub Mahindra, AIR 2011 SC 2037 observing that when the charges are framed, the court makes an endorsement till that stage. So charges are framed on the materials produced by the prosecution for framing the charges at that stage. Such indication is necessary otherwise the provisions contained in Sections 216, 323, 386, 397, 399, 401 etc. Cr.P.C. would be rendered nugatory and denuded a competent court of the powers under those provisions. So charges are framed on the materials produced by the prosecution for framing the charges at that stage. Such indication is necessary otherwise the provisions contained in Sections 216, 323, 386, 397, 399, 401 etc. Cr.P.C. would be rendered nugatory and denuded a competent court of the powers under those provisions. The court cannot be restrained from exercising its powers either under Section 323 or Section 216 Cr.P.C.” 7. Keeping the aforementioned principles of law in mind and applying the same to the facts of the case in hand, I am of considered opinion that Sessions Judge, while framing charge under section 269 of Cr.P.C. is obliged to scan the evidence collected during investigation for limited purpose for satisfying himself as to whether there are sufficient grounds to presume that accused has committed offence as is alleged. For the purpose of framing of charge, therefore, the Judge has to consider judicially whether on consideration of the materials on record, it can be said that the accused has been reasonably connected with the offence alleged to have been committed and that on the basis of said materials there is a reasonable probability of chance of accused being found guilty of the offence alleged. If the answer is in the affirmative, the judge will be at liberty to presume “that the accused has committed an offence.” Charge is first notice to the accused of an accusation made against him. It should be conveyed to him in sufficient clearness and certainty what the prosecution intends to prove and which case the accused is to meet. 8. Section 4 (c) of Code of Criminal Procedure defines a “charge” includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one. As per Law a charge may be precise formulation of a specific accusation made against a person of offence alleged to have been committed by him. The main purpose of framing charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear, unambiguous and precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of trial. 9. The main purpose of framing charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear, unambiguous and precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of trial. 9. At the time of framing charge, the Court has to prima-facie consider as to what type of materials has been collected by investigation for framing the charge and under which relevant section of Penal section/s charge is to be framed; it is also now well known cardinal principle of law that court has not to sit as post office and frame charge as per challan; Court has to apply independently judicial mind while framing of charge. 10. The argument of counsel for petitioners that charge should have been framed under section 304-A or 304-II RPC, is not tenable, because from bare perusal of facts narrated in challan, it is evident that accused persons driven the vehicle/truck and deliberately struck it on the barricade installed on the road, where Constable Sanjeev Kumar was standing, so it can be inferred that their intention was to kill him. Criminal Intention is state of mind of accused, which can be gathered from facts and circumstances of each case, a uniform formula cannot be applied that in any case if accident is caused by vehicle driven by accused and a person dies; then driver is to be charged with rash and negligent driving (304-A RPC) or u/s charged u/s (304-II RPC) as accused-driver is having knowledge that, his act of rash and negligent driving may cause death. As already held that at the time of framing of charge in criminal case, detail appreciation of evidence collected during investigation is not to be conducted. Therefore, perusal of record of trial Court and order of court with regard to framing of charge, I find that Court below has carefully scanned the evidence collected by investigating agency during investigation. He has considered all the arguments of counsel for the parties. Law is quite clear that different yard sticks are to be applied while framing of charge and while finally deciding the matter. He has considered all the arguments of counsel for the parties. Law is quite clear that different yard sticks are to be applied while framing of charge and while finally deciding the matter. At the time of framing of charge, Court has to form an opinion from the evidence collected by police, for limited purpose for satisfying himself as to whether there are sufficient grounds to presume that accused has committed specific offence as alleged in challan and if not, then what type of offence accused has committed. But at the time of final stage, Court has to see whether it has been proved beyond reasonable doubts, that accused has committed offence charged. Even court has ample power to alter the charge at any stage of trial. Even finally pronouncing the judgment, Court has power to convict the accused of lesser charge than framed. 11. The laws cited by counsel for petitioners is not applicable in present set of circumstances. Firstly, facts are to be seen then law after appreciating the facts of particular case, is to be applied. In Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava vs. State of Gujarat, (2018) 4 SCC 329 , Apex Court was finally deciding a conviction appeal and law with regard deciding the question whether case falls u/s 302 or 304-II RPC has been laid down in that particular case; the facts in judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled Salinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2008 Cri LJ 602 and judgment of Bombay High Court in case titled Salman Salim Khan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (1) Bom. C.R (Cri.) 359, are quite distinguishable. 12. In view of above discussion, this Revision is dismissed. 13. The petitioners have also filed bail application stating therein that they have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated by the police of Police Station, Udhampur. It is further submitted that even if the prosecution story is believed to be true and is taken as it is, then also charges under Section 302/34 RPC are not made out and the case presented by the prosecution squarely falls under Section 304-A RPC or 304 Part-II RPC because the alleged concocted story by the prosecution comes under exception 4 of Section 300 RPC, as there was no pre-mediation for alleged commission of offence without taking any undue advantage of acting in a cruel and unusual manner. That the petitioners’ act/omission of hitting the barricade is not with the knowledge that it will likely to fall on the deceased, as such, the present petition seeking grant of bail to the petitioners is on the ground that from the entire material available on record prima facie, it does not appear that there was intention of the petitioners to kill the deceased or the petitioners were having knowledge that doing of such an act was likely to cause death of the deceased. That even otherwise, it is an established principle of law that if the death is caused without any premeditation, in sudden fight, without the offenders taking undue advantage, then the case squarely falls under Section 304-A RPC or at the most 304 RPC, as in the present case. It is further submitted that the act alleged to be done by the petitioners is an act of rashness and negligence and does not amount to culpable homicide. Petitioners lastly prayed for their release on bail on the terms and conditions imposed by this Court. Whereas learned State counsel has opposed the bail application tooth and nails. 14. I have heard and considered the bail application. 15. Petitioners have been charged under Section 302/34 RPC and are facing trial before learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhmpur. Punishment for offence under Section 302 RPC is death, or imprisonment for life. The trial of the case is at its threshold and prosecution is yet to produce the evidence in support of its case. The offence under Section 302 RPC is heinous and at this stage, it can be presumed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused have committed the offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, so rigour of Section 497 Cr.P.C. is applicable, which debars the Court to grant the bail in such like cases at this stage. 16. In view of above, Bail application is also declined.