The Delhi High Court has recently held that it is well-settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has the power to shift 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.
“When the material placed before the court discloses great suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be justified in framing charge. No roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial was being conducted. If on the basis of materials on record a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case of framing of charge exists”, added the bench of Justice Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar.
In the present case, a revision petition U/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner/revisionist with a prayer to set aside the impugned order vide which the Ld. Trial Court ordered to frame the charge U/s 302 IPC against the petitioner/revisionist.
In the instant case, the complainant father went to attend the wedding ceremony of the accused with his son during which the accused fired a gunshot that hit the chest of the complainant's son leading to his eventual death. Initially, on the statement of the complainant and the MLC, a case U/s 307/336 IPC & 27/54/59 Arms Act was registered. Thereafter, the injured son died and section 302 IPC was substituted in place of section 307 IPC.
The impugned order was challenged by the petitioner/revisionist on the grounds that the statement given by a person after his arrest could not be treated as a statement made U/s 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was also averred in the revision petition that nothing was mentioned by the witnesses about the intention or motive of the petitioner/revisionist in the entire charge sheet. It was further averred that the Ld. ASJ failed to appreciate that there was no evidence to prove the charge of murder.
The petitioner/revisionist relied upon Satish Mehra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2013 CRL. Journal 411 in order to support his contention that there was no unimpeachable and acceptable evidence against the petitioner/revisionist in the present case. The petitioner/revisionist also relied upon Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijay Satardekar and Ors. Crl. Appeal No. 1576-1577 of 2008 to contend that at the stage of framing of the charge the Court may look into the material produced by the defence if such material establishes that the whole prosecution version is absurd. The petitioner/revisionist further relied upon P. Vijayan Vs. State of Karela (2010) 2 SCC 398 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal to contend that if two views were possible and one of them gave rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial judge would be empowered to discharge the accused.
On the other hand, it was submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that at the stage of framing of charge, only prima facie view was to be taken. It was further submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that there was no infirmity in the impugned order and the Ld. Trial Court rightly framed the charge against the petitioner/revisionist. It was further submitted by the Ld. APP that the father of the deceased who was the complainant categorically stated in his statement that it was the petitioner/revisionist who after wiping out his pistol started firing and fired one bullet towards his son which hit on his chest. It was further submitted by the Ld. APP that whatever the defence the petitioner/revisionist wanted to take, the same can be taken by him during the course of the trial.
The Court observed at the outset that at the stage of framing of a charge, the probative value of the materials on records cannot be gone into, the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. It was also observed that the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged, nor any weight is to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not, the Bench opined.
“The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or under Section 228 of the Code,’ stated the Court.
Now, coming to the factual aspects of the case, the Court adjudged that the perusal of the impugned order showed that the Ld. ASJ framed the charge on the basis of the material as placed on record by the prosecution and the statement of the eye witness who was the father of the deceased who stated in his statement that it was the petitioner/revisionist who after wiping out his pistol started firing and fired one gunshot towards his son.
Thus, the Court dismissed the revision and while Observing that it found no infirmity in the order of the trial court.
Case Details
Name: SHAKILUDDIN @ BABLOO V. THE STATE
Number: CRL.REV.P. 150/2020
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
