JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. By this judgment I propose to dispose of Criminal Revision Petition No. 380 of 1999 and Criminal Revision petition No. 400 of 1999. Both these revision petitions arc directed against the order dated 25.9.1999 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in case arising out of FIR No. 188/94 under Sections 302/506, 144/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Mehrauli. In this case, Romesh Sharma and six others have been charged for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Panel Code while Romesh Sharma, Sant Ram and Hem Chand have charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners herein have challenged the order framing charge on the ground, inter alia, that the material on record, it taken to be correct, does not make out a triable case inasmuch as no conviction can be based thereon. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 25.9.2000, while dealing with the case, was pleased to hold that all the facts and circumstances taken together point out grave suspicion about the involvement of the accused, persons in the conspiracy to kill Kunjum. The FIR No. 188/99, dated 20.3.1999, Police Station Mehrauli is based on the statement of Ram Achal Tiwari, who states as follows:-
"He was working, as Care-Taker at the aforesaid farm house and used to reside there. Romesh Sharma was in jail for the last several months and Surender Mishra nephew of Romesh Sharma was looking after the farm house. On 20.3.99 at about 8.00 a.m., Surender Mishra came to the farm house and met his men Nani, Romesh alias Rajesh, Rakesh and Parmod. The said persons were engaged at the farm house for the last about one and half months. After about twenty minutes, Surender Mishra reached the farm house and told the complainant that Kunjum Madan would come to the farm house on that day and that the complainant should get Mandir cleaned for the purpose of Pooja to be done by her. At about 11.30 a.m., two girls namely Sonu and Dolly who used to come to the farm house along with Surender Mishra came in a car along with Pt. Chhawi Dass and told the complainant to clean the Mandir and that they would return with Pooja articles after sometime for getting Pooja done and thereafter left the place. At about 12 noon, Kunjum came in her Toyota. She called the complainant and told him that the car got punctured and he should call the mechanic. Ram Achal Tiwari thereafter brought the mechanic who went back to the shop to bring tools. Kunjum handed over the keys of the building to the complainant and told him to open it. The complainant went along with Kunjum and opened the building and thereafter he and Kunjum entered the same. Kun jum went to Pooja Room and on her return reached the main gale of the building at about 12.30 noon. It is at this stage that Nani, Ramesh alias Rajesh, Rakesh and Parmod entered the building. Nani and Rakesh were having knives, parmod was having a revolver while Ramesh was having a bottle. All of them confronted Kunjum as to how she had entered the build ing. Ramesh and Rakesh felled Kunjum on the ground and Nani gave blows with knife on various parts of the body of Kunjum while Rakesh gave blow with bottle on the chest of Kunjum. Parmod waved the revolver threatening the complainant that in case he came there, he would be shot dead. All the said four persons committed murder of Kunjum and took away handbag and mobile phone of Kunjum and fled away from the spot. The complainant rushed out to inform Police Control Room but could not get the number and went to Chhatarpur Mandir and informed the police. Accused Sant Ram is named Parmod. It is on this report that case u/s 302/397/506/34 IPC was registered."
3. While investigating the information, Surendra Mishra, Tajender Virdi @ Dolly, Jaspreet Virdi @ Sonu and Romesh Sharma were also arrested on the allegation of having conspired to gel Kunjum murdered with the help of hired assassins of whom Rakesh, Ganga Singh, Devinder and Sudesh could not be arrested. The investigating agency has placed reliance on as many as 40 witnesses but, according to the proseculion, has brought out their case to implicate all the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has analysed the material on record and individually dealt with the same in his order under challenge to show that on the material available charge can be framed against the petitioners.
4. What has been argued before me by learned counsel is that wherever a circumstance can give rise to an explanation, that circumstances is not sufficient to bring home a guilt in a case of circumstantial evidence. A great deal of learning has gone into this matter where judgement after judgments have been cited to this effect that conviction cannot be based in a case of circumstantial evidence where a plausible alternative explanation is possible and. therefore, if the material on record in this case is taken, as a whole, and taken to be proved, is not sufficient to sustain conviction and the charges frame ought to be quashed. On the other hand, there is sufficient precedents to show that at the stage of framing of charge reasonable ground for believing that conviction is possible is sufficient. Even prima facie case need not be proved. There is indeed material on record which satisfies this requirement; It would, therefore, not be appropriate at this stage to stifle the trial on the basis of what ultimately may be the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The value to be attached to the evidence, its nature and quality will depend upon how the prosecution unfolds its case before the Court. I do not propose to go into the individual circumstance which has been adequately gone into by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, list any observation on the merits may cause prejudice to the case. Suffice it to say, that the circumstances taken as a whole do make out at this stage sufficient ground to put the accused to trial. I am of the view that there is no need to go into the elaborate reasoning, as I have already stated, which will only burden the record.
5. I have carefully heard learned counsel for the parties for many days and with their aid and help gone through the following judgments:
1. State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, .
2. Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, 1988 (1)(SCC 715.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, 1996 Crl. LJ 2448 (SC).
4. Kehar Singh v. State, .
5. Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1637.
6. Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor .
7. Sardul Singh Cafeeshar v. The State of Bombay, .
8. Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., .
9. Niranjan Singh and Anr. v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Ors.
10. State of Maharashtra v. Damn Gopinath Shinde and Ors., 2000 Crl. L.J. 2301.
11. Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47.
12. L.K. Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1997 Crl. L.J. 2559.
13. State (Collector, Central Excise) v. Papas Kumar Shome, 1985 Crl.LJ. 871.
14. Bhugdomal Gangaram and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, .
15. Shri Ram v. The State of U.P., 1975 SCC (Crl.) 87.
16. State v. Shankar Sakharam Jadhav and Anr., .
17. Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Balmraj Bijja and Ors.,
18. Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and Anr., .
19. State of Maharashtra etc. v. Som Nath Thapa etc., 1996(SC) Crl.LJ. 2448.
20. State of Tamilnadu through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT v. Nalini and Ors., 1999 Crl.LJ 3124 SC.
6. I have also gone through the record of the case, I am satisfied that on the basis of the material on record, there is every justification in maintaining the order framing charge arid charge framed. In this view of the matter Criminal Revision No. 380 of 1999 and Criminal Revision No. 400 of 1999 are dismissed.