Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 3299 (PNJ)

Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana

2023-12-02

MANISHA BATRA

body2023
JUDGMENT Manisha Batra, J. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.02.2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula in Sessions case No. SC/129/22, titled as State v. Vinod Kumar and others, arising out of FIR No. 193 dated 26.10.2021, registered under Sections 376, 323, 406, 498A, 120B, 506 and 511 of the IPC at Police Station Kalka, Panchkula. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Namrata Saklani alleging that she was married to accused Vinod Kumar on 09.05.2016. Shortly after her marriage, her husband and other members of her in-laws family had started harassing her on account of demand of dowry and she was subjected to mental as well physical cruelty. She further alleged that her husband was not fully capable of performing sexual activities and the present petitioner, who is her brother-in-law, was fully aware of this fact. He was keeping an evil eye upon her and had tried to sexually harass her. Sometimes, he used to peep inside bathroom when she was present there. On a particular day, he even entered into her room in a naked condition and tried to commit rape upon her. She had somehow rescued herself from his clutches and had reported the incident to her in-laws, who instead of supporting her, had defended the petitioner and had extended threats to her. Her life had been made miserable and ultimately she was thrown out of her matrimonial house. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner along with co-accused was arrested and subsequently released on bail. After completion of investigation and usual formalities, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court. The case was committed to the Special Court and vide order dated 08.02.2023, the petitioner was chargesheeted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC, besides offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 354 and 506 read with Section 120B of the IPC. Feeling aggrieved of the charge as framed under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 3. I had heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record. Feeling aggrieved of the charge as framed under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 3. I had heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the charge as framed under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC was not at all sustainable against the petitioner as all the allegations leveled against him as well as his family members were totally false and frivolous in nature. The offence under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC was not at all made out against the petitioner even on the basis of the allegations as leveled in the FIR, as per which, he had tried to force physical relation upon the complainant by entering into her room in a naked condition. No specific overt act, which could be stated to be falling under the definition of Section 375 IPC, had been attributed to him. While framing charge, the trial Court had taken the statement of the complainant as gospel truth. There was no occasion at all for the petitioner, who himself was a married person and living with his wife in the same premises, to make any attempt to ravish the complainant. He further argued that the trial Court by ignoring the fact that the allegations as leveled against the petitioner at this point, even if had gone un-rebutted, would not have warranted the conviction of the petitioner, has erred in framing charge under the aforesaid sections. With this broad spectrum of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned chargesheet was liable to be set aside to the extent to which, charge under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC had been framed and further argued that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Conversely, it was the submission of learned State counsel that charge under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC had rightly been framed against the petitioner as there were specific allegations in the FIR that the petitioner had attempted to commit rape upon the complainant. 5. Conversely, it was the submission of learned State counsel that charge under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC had rightly been framed against the petitioner as there were specific allegations in the FIR that the petitioner had attempted to commit rape upon the complainant. He argued that at the time of framing of charge, only a prima facie case was to be seen and the concerned Court was required to evaluate the material placed on record at its face value and if the same disclosed all the ingredients constituting concerned offence, the charge could have been framed. He further argued that the prosecution had collected sufficient evidence, which prima facie showed the victim to have been subjected to aforesaid offences, for which, the petitioner had rightly been chargesheetd. Hence, he argued that there was no merit in the revision petition and it was liable to be dismissed. 6. It is well settled proposition of law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court should not enter into the process of evaluating the evidence by deciding its worth or credibility. The limited exercise during that stage is to find out whether the material offered by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence is sufficient for the Court to proceed further at that stage or not. If there is a strong suspicion, which leads a Court to arrive at a conclusion that there is a ground for presuming that an accused has committed an offence, then, it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the time of framing of charge, it is not for the Court of law to indulge in detailed enquiry as to whether the material collected by the prosecution is sufficient for convicting an accused or not and it is enough that the material so collected by the prosecution exhibits a prima facie case for it to proceed further against the concerned accused. The right of the accused, at that stage, is only of being heard and nothing more than that. Even the sifting and meticulous scanning of the evidence in an elaborate manner is not permissible at the time of framing of charge. The right of the accused, at that stage, is only of being heard and nothing more than that. Even the sifting and meticulous scanning of the evidence in an elaborate manner is not permissible at the time of framing of charge. Reference in this regard can be made to Naresh Chandra v. State of U.P., 1987 (3) Crimes 842 (Allahabad), wherein it was held that even a very strong suspicion based on material placed before the concerned Court is sufficient for framing a charge. Reference in this context can also be made to State by Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sri S. Bangarappa, (2001) 1 SCC 369 . 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following principles with regard to question of framing of charge in a celebrated judgment cited as Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368 , wherein on consideration of the authorities about the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the CrPC, it was observed and held as follows: "(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed 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. iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed 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. v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. 8. On applying the ratio of law as discussed above and on a careful consideration of the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was sufficient and prima facie material on record before the trial Court to frame charge under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC against the petitioner in the form of statement of the complainant. The said material cannot be said to be groundless one at this stage. The material collected by the prosecution exhibited a case to proceed further against the petitioner qua commission of aforementioned offence. As such, no ground has been made out to interfere with the order as passed by the trial Court. Consequently, the present revision petition fails and his hereby dismissed. 9. The material collected by the prosecution exhibited a case to proceed further against the petitioner qua commission of aforementioned offence. As such, no ground has been made out to interfere with the order as passed by the trial Court. Consequently, the present revision petition fails and his hereby dismissed. 9. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the present petition by this Court will not preclude the petitioner to raise his defence or legal position before the trial Court during trial of the main case.