JUDGMENT : CRM (M) No. 603/2021 1. This quashment petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“the Cr.P.C”] is directed against an order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur [“the trial court”] in Sessions Case 19/2020 titled UT of J & K Vs. Munish Singh & Ors. whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code [“ the IPC”] and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. R K Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to take note of the prosecution case as is presented before the trial court: 2.1. On 02.07.2020, information from a reliable source was received at Police Station Udhampur that some unknown person or persons have committed the murder of one Rahul Bhagat S/o Subash Chander Bhagat at Dhandyal, Udhampur and the dead body was lying on the spot. On disclosure of commission of cognizable offence, an FIR was registered at the Police Station and the investigation commenced. 2.2. On 03.07.2020, accused Munish Singh S/o Madan Singh R/o Kuddhar, Tehsil Kastigarh, District Doda was arrested in the case. During the course of interrogation, Munish Singh made two disclosure statements one on 03.07.2020 and another on 09.07.2020. The other two accused namely Mohd. Aslam and Ravinder Singh were arrested on 08.07.2020 and 11.07.2020 respectively. On the basis of a confessional statement made by the accused Munish Singh on 11.07.2020 to the Dy. SP, who was investigating the matter, the petitioner herein also came to be named as accused having conspired the murder and was thus, arrested on 12.07.2020. The accused Mohd. Aslam and Ravinder Singh after their arrest also made disclosure statements in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on 09.07.2020 and 11.07.2020 respectively. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The statements of some of the witnesses were got recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The investigation concluded with the finding of the Investigating Officer that the killing of the deceased Rahul Bhagat was engineered by the petitioner herein and accomplished by Munish Singh and Mohd. Aslam. The accused Munish Singh and Mohd. Aslam. The accused Munish Singh and Mohd. Aslam acted in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by the petitioner and his henchmen accused Ravinder Singh and in furtherance thereof, way laid the deceased and killed him by causing multiple stab injuries with the help of knife. 2.3. The Investigating Officer relied upon the confessional statement made by accused Munish Singh in which he narrated the entire sequence of events right from the hatching of conspiracy by the petitioner along with other accused to the commission of murder of deceased Rahul Bhagat. This confessional statement was made by Munish Singh on 11.07.2020 in the presence of Executive Magistrate. Taking lead from the aforesaid confessional statement made by Munish Singh, the statement of some of the witnesses including the sisters of the deceased, namely, Radha Devi and Priyanka Devi as also the uncles of the deceased, namely, Pawan Kumar, Ram Rattan, Ravi Kumar and father of the deceased, namely, Subash Chander also came to be recorded. On conclusion of the investigation, challan came to be presented before the trial court. 2.4. Vide the order impugned dated 15.09.2021, the trial court charged all the accused including the petitioner herein with commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. It is this order of the trial court which is called in question by the petitioner in this petition. 3. Impugned order is challenged by the petitioner primarily on the following grounds: 3.1. That the trial court has framed charges against the petitioner placing sole reliance upon the confessional statement of the accused Munish Singh dated 11.07.2020 which, in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, is inadmissible in evidence. 3.2. That the trial court erroneously placed reliance upon the disclosure statement of accused Ravinder Singh dated 11.07.2020 which led to the recovery of knife allegedly given to the accused Ravinder Singh by the petitioner. The disclosure statement of Ravinder Singh and the consequent recovery of weapon does not connect the petitioner with the commission of crime and therefore, the trial court committed an error in placing reliance upon the aforesaid statement for framing of the charge under challenge in this petition. 3.3. That there is no other ocular or circumstantial evidence on record which would disclose the commission of offence by the petitioner. 4. 3.3. That there is no other ocular or circumstantial evidence on record which would disclose the commission of offence by the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, learned GA appearing for the respondent would submit that the disclosure statement made by the accused Munish Singh is relevant in view of the provisions of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and can be read against the co-accused in terms of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. 4.1. He would argue that apart from the disclosure statement made by accused Munish Singh on 11.07.2020 which has come under serious attack from the petitioner, there is enough oral as well as circumstantial evidence pointing to the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offences for which he has been charged. 4.2. He would submit that there is ample oral evidence which prima facie demonstrates that there was previous enmity between the petitioner and the deceased with respect to the land. There are some of the witnesses who had even seen all the accused together prior to commission of the crime giving rise to a strong suspicion that the accused were together as a part of conspiracy. He would, thus, argue that having regard to the seriousness of the crime and the manner in which a young life has been taken away by the accused at the behest of the petitioner, the trial court rightly framed the charges against the petitioner as well by the aid of Section 120-B IPC. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is legally correct and does not call for any interference in exercise of inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 6. The argument of Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has been involved in the commission of the crime solely on the basis of a confessional statement made by the co-accused Munish Singh on 11.07.2020 which, otherwise is inadmissible in evidence, is factually, incorrect. 7. The trial court has taken note of the other oral and circumstantial evidence collected during the investigation which strongly points to the hatching of a conspiracy by the petitioner along with other co- accused to commit the murder of deceased Rahul Bhagat. 7. The trial court has taken note of the other oral and circumstantial evidence collected during the investigation which strongly points to the hatching of a conspiracy by the petitioner along with other co- accused to commit the murder of deceased Rahul Bhagat. The motive for commission of crime is prima facie established in the statement of various witnesses recorded both under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. The statement of witnesses PW-Radha Devi, PW-Priyanka Devi, PW-Subash Chander, PW-Pawan Kumar, PW- Pritam Kumar, PW-Ram Rattan and PW-Ravi Kumar prima facie establish the motive for commission of murder of Rahul Bhagat. As per the consistent oral testimony of the witnesses aforementioned, it has come to fore during the investigation that the only motive to commit the murder of Rahul Bhagat was the long standing land dispute between the petitioner and the deceased Rahul Bhagat. It has also come in the prosecution evidence that in respect of some land, there had been litigation between the petitioner on one hand and the deceased and his family on the other hand before the Revenue and Civil courts. 8. Regarding the confessional statement made by co-accused Munish Singh on 11.07.2020, there is no dispute that the so called confessional statement made by Munish Singh to the Dy. SP is in the presence of Executive Magistrate-PW-Mohd. Saleem. It may be correct that the statement of Munish Singh recorded by the Dy. SP Udhampur in the presence of Executive Magistrate, 1 st Class, Udhampur-Mohd. Saleem is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and may not be a strictly speaking statement protected by Section 26 of the Evidence Act as was contended by Mr. Bhatia, learned GA. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act reads thus: “25….. Confession to police officer not to be proved. No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.” 9. From reading of Section 25, it is evident that no confession made to the police officer is admissible in evidence against the person making it. The principle upon which the rejection of confession made by an accused to the police officer is based is that such a confession made or obtained is untrustworthy. From reading of Section 25, it is evident that no confession made to the police officer is admissible in evidence against the person making it. The principle upon which the rejection of confession made by an accused to the police officer is based is that such a confession made or obtained is untrustworthy. The broad ground for not admitting confession made to a police officer is to avoid the danger of admitting a false confession and to prevent practice of torture by the police to extract confessions from the accused persons. 10. Section 26 makes a confession made by any person while in custody of a police admissible in evidence against such person provided that the same is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 26 reads thus: “26..... Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him. No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.” 11. From perusal of Section 26, it clearly transpires that Section 26 is not by way of an exception to Section 25 and only provides that a confession made by any person while he is in custody of a police officer to any person other than police officer and that too in the immediate presence of Magistrate shall be proved against such person. 12. Similarly, Section 27 which makes some information received from the accused admissible in evidence reads thus: “ 27..... How much of information received from accused may be proved. Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” 13. The basic idea embodied in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered on a search made on the strength of any information obtained from the accused in the custody of a police officer, such discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the accused is true. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered on a search made on the strength of any information obtained from the accused in the custody of a police officer, such discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the accused is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes reliable information. Viewed thus, Section 27 can be construed to be an exception to Section 25 and Section 26. 14. If the statement made by accused Munish Singh on 11.07.2020 is analysed in light of the provisions of Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, one would prima facie tend to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that the confessional statement attributed to accused Munish Singh may not be proved against him or that the same cannot be proved against the co-accused named by him to be an accomplice in the commission of crime by the aid of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, as is rightly held by the trial court in the order impugned, that apart from confessional statement of accused Munish Singh dated 11.07.2020, which of course is contentious, there is other oral as well as circumstantial evidence which points to the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime as noticed above. There is ample evidence to impute motive to the petitioner for engaging the services of accused Munish Singh, Ravinder Singh and Mohd. Aslam to commit the murder of deceased Rahul Bhagat. There is sufficient evidence brought on record by the Investigating Officer to prima facie demonstrate that there is a long standing land dispute between the petitioner and deceased Rahul Bhagat and his family and that the petitioner along with other accused had on earlier occasions threatened the father of the deceased that his only son would be eliminated. There is evidence on record to indicate that accused Munish Singh and Mohd. Aslam were seen by the prosecution witnesses in the company of the petitioner before they proceeded to commit the murder of the deceased. There is also evidence on record to show that the petitioner was in constant touch with accused Ravinder Singh having made in as many as 192 calls to the said accused on the day of occurrence itself. Aslam were seen by the prosecution witnesses in the company of the petitioner before they proceeded to commit the murder of the deceased. There is also evidence on record to show that the petitioner was in constant touch with accused Ravinder Singh having made in as many as 192 calls to the said accused on the day of occurrence itself. There is also evidence on record to demonstrate that accused Ravinder Singh made as many as 15 calls to accused Mohd. Aslam whereas, accused Munish Singh made as many as 54 calls to the accused Mohd. Aslam during the said period. It is thus, prima facie found by the prosecution that all the accused including the petitioner herein were in touch with each other before the commission of murder of deceased Rahul Bhagat committed by the accused Munish Singh and Mohd. Aslam by giving him multiple stab injuries. 15. The recovery of weapon, a big sized knife, at the instance of accused Ravinder Singh also points to the complicity of the petitioner. The said weapon was allegedly given to accused Ravinder Singh by the petitioner for committing the murder of Rahul Bhagat but was not used by the accused Munish Singh and Mohd. Aslam for the reason that it was not convenient for them to carry such large knife. The establishment of motive of committing the murder of Rahul Bhagat i.e. the land dispute and old enmity between the petitioner and the family of the deceased; the recovery of weapon pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused Ravinder Singh in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act coupled with oral and circumstantial evidence pointing to the hatching of conspiracy by the petitioner along with other accused go a long way in giving rise to a strong suspicion that the petitioner and other accused acted in close concert and accomplished the elimination of the deceased Rahul Bhagat. 16. It is trite law that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is only required to consider and evaluate the material and the documents placed on record with the charge-sheet with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken on their face value do disclose the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offences. Even strong suspicion against the accused for commission of alleged offence/offences is good enough to frame a charge. Even strong suspicion against the accused for commission of alleged offence/offences is good enough to frame a charge. Section 227 of the Cr.P.C provides for discharge of accused if the trial court finds no sufficient ground for proceeding against him. The object of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C is to filter out cases where no prima facie evidence exists against the accused and to ensure that frivolous and baseless prosecutions are curtailed at an early stage. The parameters that are required to be kept in mind by the court framing charges can be classified as under: 16.1. Prima facie Case. The Court must determine whether the material on record discloses the prima facie case against the accused and to arrive at such conclusion, it is not necessary for the court to assess whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction and even the evidence creating a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charge. 16.2. Consideration of evidence. The court should examine the prosecution evidence to find out the existence of a prima facie case and the ingredients of offence and not conduct a mini trial. The contradictions, inconsistencies or improbabilities in the evidence should not be weighed heavily unless these are glaring or obvious. 16.3. Sufficiency of Grounds. The term “Sufficient Ground” refers to credible evidence or material that supports the charge. 16.4. Scope of Judicial Determination. The judge must confine itself to the documents provided by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C and the rival contentions of the parties. The defense evidence is generally not considered at this stage. Absence of any material evidence linking the accused to the alleged offence or unreliability, inherent improbability and contradiction of evidence may be a ground for discharge of the accused. In a nutshell, the trial court must evaluate the evidence on record to find out whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. While doing so, the court must consider whether the material on record, if un-rebutted would lead to conviction. 17. There is plethora of judicial precedents laying down guidelines for the courts framing charge under Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court has referred to couple of judgments in this regard and therefore, I do not wish to repeat the same. 17. There is plethora of judicial precedents laying down guidelines for the courts framing charge under Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court has referred to couple of judgments in this regard and therefore, I do not wish to repeat the same. Suffice it to say that in view of the settled legal position and the scope of the jurisdiction of the trial court to frame charge, the trial court has committed no illegality in framing the charges against the petitioner. To reiterate, the evidence on record, oral as well as documentary, is sufficient to create a strong suspicion about the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime and therefore, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner and consequently, framing of charge under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s), if any. Bail App No. 324/2023 1) This is an application by the petitioner seeking his bail, both on merits as well as on medical grounds. 2) It is pleaded by the applicant/petitioner that he is an innocent citizen and has been falsely implicated by the Police in the commission of murder of one Rahul Bhagat on the basis of some inadmissible confessional statement made by co-accused Munish Singh before the Dy. SP Udhampur on 11.07.2020. 3) It is submitted that apart from aforesaid confessional statement, there is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution to connect the applicant with the commission of offence of alleged murder by the co-accused Munish Singh and Mohd. Aslam. The applicant has also placed on record his medical record to demonstrate that the petitioner is suffering from several ailments and therefore, it would not be safe for him to remain in incarceration for long. 4) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that he is not involved in the commission of crime and has been falsely implicated is concerned, suffice it to say that the trial court, on the basis of material on record, has charged the applicant with the commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The order of framing of charge passed by the trial court has been upheld by this Court while dismissing CRM (M) 603/2021 hereinabove. In the face of this position, it is not open for the applicant to contend that he has been falsely implicated in the commission of crime by the Police solely on the basis of a confessional statement made by co-accused Munish Singh to the Dy. SP on 11.07.2020. The evidence appearing against the applicant apart from the confessional statement of Munish Singh dated 11.07.2020 has already been discussed elaborately while dismissing the CRM (M) 603/2021 and therefore, it would be futile to enter into same discussion yet again while considering this bail application. 5) The applicant also prays for grant of bail on medical grounds. From the medical record annexed with the application, it transpires that the applicant was examined by Physician Consultant of Government Medical College Hospital, Udhampur on 30.11.2023. The applicant was found suffering from Bronchial Asthma, URTI and Hypertension. He was prescribed medication and further follow up. The application for grant of bail on medical grounds as well as on merits came to be rejected by the trial court on 08.12.2023. During the pendency of this petition and the orders passed by this Court, the applicant was got medically examined by the Medical Board of Government Medical College Hospital, Udhampur. A medical certificate issued by the board dated 05.08.2024 along with communication of the Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur bearing No. DJU/Med/24/8103-04 dated 05.08.2024 reveals that for the ailments the applicant is suffering from, he was admitted in GMC AH Udhampur from 19.02.2024 to 28.02.2024. He was found suffering from poorly controlled Bronchial Asthma needing continuous treatment. It is opined that in spite of treatment, the condition of the applicant has worsened. The applicant also suffers from resistant Hypertension with multiple episodes of accelerated HTN. 6) It is stated that the applicant was admitted previously in the GMC AH with accelerated HTN when he was also found to have severe Dyslipidemia and DM. It was thus opined by the board that in view of the multiple ailments which are resistant to treatment, the applicant required specialized treatment and follow up under close personal care. 6) It is stated that the applicant was admitted previously in the GMC AH with accelerated HTN when he was also found to have severe Dyslipidemia and DM. It was thus opined by the board that in view of the multiple ailments which are resistant to treatment, the applicant required specialized treatment and follow up under close personal care. 7) In compliance with the order dated 27.12.2024 passed by this Court in this bail application, the applicant was again subjected to medical examination by the board of Doctors at GMC Hospital, Udhampur on 30.12.2024. As per the medical certificate issued by the board dated 01.01.2025, the medical condition of the applicant has remained the same and the board has opined that in view of resistant hypertension and Bronchial Asthma with frequent accelerations, the applicant requires regular specialized treatment and follow up under close personal care. 8) In view of the medical opinion on record, it is evident that with the ailments which the applicant is suffering from, it may not be safe for the applicant to keep him in Jail. Despite his admissions in Medical College Hospital and the treatment administered to him pursuant to the directions passed by the trial court as well as this Court, the medical condition of the applicant has not improved and rather worsened. As opined by the board, the applicant needs a regular treatment under personal and specialized care which personal care may not be possible in the environment of a Jail. 9) That apart, the nature of evidence collected by prosecution against the petitioner and that recorded before the trial Court so far, though subject matter of discussion by the trial Court at final stage, is prima facie not strong enough to warrant conviction. Out of 52 witnesses cited by prosecution, 23 stand examined whereas 2 witnesses have been given up by the prosecution. The material witnesses like PW-Subash Chander, PW-Pawan Kumar, PW-Ravi Kumar, PW-Rahul Sharma, PW-Radha Devi, PW- Khushbu and PW- Priyanka, who are close relatives of deceased Rahul Bhagat, have already been examined. There is of course evidence on record prima facie spelling out possible motive for committing the murder of Rahul Bhagat i.e. long standing land dispute. The statements of the witnesses so far recorded do indicate the association of the petitioner with accused Ravinder and Munish and their father Madan Singh. There is of course evidence on record prima facie spelling out possible motive for committing the murder of Rahul Bhagat i.e. long standing land dispute. The statements of the witnesses so far recorded do indicate the association of the petitioner with accused Ravinder and Munish and their father Madan Singh. They were also seen together on the date of occurrence. No other circumstance, demonstrating that there was prior meeting of minds or concert between the petitioner and other accused, has been apparently proved. Without commenting much on evidence so far recorded by the trial Court, lest it may prejudice the trial, suffice it to say that having regard to the nature of evidence on record, a case for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out. Since most of the material witnesses have been recorded, as such, the possibility of tempering with or wining over the witnesses is negligible. Besides, the release of the petitioner, who is suffering from multiple ailments, will not only give him opportunity to take proper treatment under personal care of his family but it will also provide him better opportunity to defend his case before the trial Court. The petitioner has been in jail for the last four and half years. 10) Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail, subject to following conditions i. That the release of the applicant on bail shall be subject to furnishing of personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. ii. That the applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Union Territory of J & K without prior permission of the trial court. iii. That the applicant shall remain present before the trial court during the trial regularly unless specifically exempted by the trial court. iv. That the applicant shall not come in contact with or influence prosecution witnesses in any manner. 11) Application is disposed of. 12) It is, however, made clear that observations made by this Court are tentative and only for the purpose of disposal of these two petitions and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on any question of law or fact. 11) Application is disposed of. 12) It is, however, made clear that observations made by this Court are tentative and only for the purpose of disposal of these two petitions and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on any question of law or fact. The trial Court shall proceed to conclude the trial and pass the judgment uninfluenced by whatever is said by this Court hereinabove.