Shiv Kumar @ Bholu & Anr vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 6317 Del

*       THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       CRL.REV.P. 578/2011 with Crl. M.A. 19793-94/2011

                      Date of Order: 22.12.2011

SHIV KUMAR @ BHOLU & ANR                                ..... Petitioner
                     Through:             Mr. Pardeep Khatri, Advocate
              versus
STATE                                                   ..... Respondent
                     Through:             Ms Fizani Husain, APP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition is against the impugned order dated 02.08.2011 whereby the learned ASJ has passed order for framing of charges against the petitioners under section 308/342/352/427/452/506/34 IPC.

2. The order has been assailed mainly on the ground that section 308 IPC was added later on by the IO and that there was no case made out against the petitioners.

3. Brief facts are that Arvind Nath Tripathi made a complaint on 08.04.2008 that when he was sitting in his office, the petitioner Jitendra came there that he wanted to erect wall on his vacant land in Khasra No. 38/25 where two shops were already constructed. On his raising objections, Jitendra threatened him and went away. In the evening at about 6.30 pm he returned with his associates and accomplices namely Shiv Kumar @ Bholu, Jai Kishan with sticks, lathies and forcibly entered his office and assaulted him saying that if he will not allow them to raise walls, he would not be left alive. Then they all assaulted him with fists, kicks and sticks and also broke the things lying in his office whereupon FIR was registered and the petitioners were arrested. Having considered the material, the learned ASJ has already framed charges against them.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

5. Having gone through the material available on record and particularly the fact that the complainant/injured has categorically named the petitioners assigning specific role in commission of the offence and further that they were all known to him, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of framing of charges.

6. At the stage of framing of charges, Section 227 and 228 CrPC are applicable. Reading of these provisions together makes it clear that at the beginning and at the initial stage of trial, the court is not required to meticulously judge the truth, veracity and effect of evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce 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 trial to consider in detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The court at that stage is also not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction or whether the trial is certain to end in conviction of the accused. The only thing that has to be seen is whether there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence.

7. In view of the above, the petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA (JUDGE) DECEMBER 22, 2011 awanish