Pappu @ Hem Chand vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2012 Latest Caselaw 3862 Del

                                                                         #8
$~
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       CRL.REV.P. 334/2012 & CRL. M.A. 7754/2012

PAPPU @ HEM CHAND                        ..... Petitioner
                 Through                 Mr. R.C. Pathak with
                                         Ms. Neelima Raj, Advocates

                        versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
                  Through   Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State
                            with SI Pawan Kumar, PG
                            Cell/East.

%                                  Date of Decision: 3rd July, 2012

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                                 JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J : (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed against the order framing

Charge under Section 307of Indian Penal Code on the ground that no

X-ray report has been filed, no cartridge has been seized and injury

caused to the complainant is superficial.

2. Mr. R.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

there is no corroborative medical evidence to show that the complainant

had suffered any injury. He further submits that on the evidence on

record, no conviction is possible. In this connection, he relies upon a

judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Ram Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr., 1998 Crl. L.J. 3131(Rajasthan) wherein it has been

held as under:-

"15. The learned trial Judge superficially considered the material and documentary evidence for the purposes of framing charges and, consequently, the material and documents relied upon by the prosecution, intrinsically and on its face, when considered in its right perspective in the aforementioned circumstances, do not furnish sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused- persons for the alleged commission of offence of attempted murder, there cannot be any justification for still framing charge for alleged commission of attempted murder and, consequently, the impugned order cannot be held to be justified by the facts and circumstances as are borne out of the prosecution story."

3. The Supreme Court in Som Chakravarty Vs. State Through

CBI, (2007) 5 SCC 403 while laying down the test for framing of

charge, has held that if on the basis of 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. At the time of framing of Charge the probative value of the

material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on

record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. Consequently, the

petitioner's argument that conviction is not possible on the evidence on

record is irrelevant.

4. Further, the Supreme Court in Bappa alias Bapu Vs. State of

Maharashtra, (2004) 6 SCC 485 has held that Section 307 of IPC

makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any.

The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done

with the intent or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that

Section. It was also held that an attempt in order to be criminal need

not be the penultimate act and it was sufficient in law, if there was

present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.

5. This Court is of the view that at the Charge stage, the Court is

required to consider only prima facie evidence and that too, to the

extent that if there was an intent coupled with some overt act in

execution thereof. Although the nature of injury actually caused may

often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the

intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other

circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without

any reference at all to actual wounds. Consequently, the petitioner's

argument that it was essential that bodily injury capable of causing

death should have been inflicted, is not correct.

6. Moreover, in the MLC record of the present case it is clearly

mentioned that there was a gunshot injury and that the accused had

suffered a lacerated wound.

7. In view of the aforesaid, no interference with the impugned order

framing charge is called for. Accordingly, the present petition and

application are dismissed.

MANMOHAN, J JULY 03, 2012 rn