Jharkhand High Court
Janki Devi vs State Of Jharkhand on 22 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1957 of 2022
1. Janki Devi
2. Binod Mandal ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Hemlal Mahto ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
------
05/ 22.08.2022 Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
13.05.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih,
in connection with S.T. Case No. 125 of 2020 arising out of Sariya P.S.
Case No. 19 of 2020, whereby the learned court has framed the charge
against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 306 and 304-B of the
Indian Penal Code, pending in that court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
chargesheet has been submitted under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and cognizance has been taken in that case. He submits that however
by the impugned order dated 13.05.2022, the learned court has framed the
charge under Section 304-B IPC also, against the materials available on
record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied in the case of
R.S. Mishra Versus State of Orissa & Ors., in Criminal Appeal No. 232
of 2005, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-18 held as follows:-
"18. As seen from Section 227 above, while
discharging an accused, the Judge concerned has to
consider the record of the case and the documents
placed therewith, and if he is so convinced after
hearing both the parties that there is no sufficient
ground to proceed against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused, but he has to record his
reasons for doing the same. Section 228 which deals
with framing of the charge, begins with the words "If
after such consideration". Thus, these words
in Section 228 refer to the `consideration'
under Section 227 which has to be after taking into
account the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith. These words provide an inter-
connection between Sections 227 and 228. That
being so, while Section 227 provides for recording
the reasons for discharging an accused, although it
is not so specifically stated in Section 228, it can
certainly be said that when the charge under a
particular section is dropped or diluted, (although
the accused is not discharged), some minimum
reasons in nutshell are expected to be recorded
disclosing the consideration of the material on
record. This is because the charge is to be framed
`after such consideration' and therefore, that
consideration must be reflected in the order."
5. He further relied in the case of Union of India Versus
Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4. By way of
relying this judgment, he submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that while exercising power under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., the
Judge concerned has to consider the record of the case and the documents
placed therewith and has to consider the appropriate probabilities of the
case.
6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that there is
no illegality in the impugned order.
7. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 227 of the
Cr.P.C., it does not mean that the Judge can act merely as a post office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities
of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced
before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and
cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
8. While framing charges, court is required to evaluate materials
and documents on record to decide whether facts emerging therefrom
taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to
go deep into the probative value of materials on record. It needs
to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that accused had
committed offence. But it should not evaluate sufficiency of evidence to
convict accused. Even if there is a grave suspicion against the accused and
it is not properly explained or court feels that accused might have
committed offence, then framing of charges against the accused is
justified. It is only for conviction of accused that materials must indicate
that accused had committed offence but for framing of charges if materials
indicate that accused might have committed offence, then framing of
charge is proper. Materials brought on by prosecution must be believed to
be true and their probative value cannot be decided at this stage. The
accused entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by
prosecution. He is not entitled to produce any material at this stage and
the court is not required to consider any such material, if submitted.
Whether the prima facie case made out depends upon facts and
circumstances of the each case. If two views are possible and materials
indicate mere suspicion, not being grave suspicion, against the accused,
then he may be discharged. The court has to consider broad probabilities
of case, total effect of evidence and documents produced before it. The
court should not act as mouthpiece of prosecution and it is impressible to
have roving enquiry at the stage of framing of charge.
9. In the case in hand, there is allegation of poisoning to the
deceased. The case relied by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in the case of R.S. Mishra Versus State of Orissa & Ors
(Supra), the issue was regarding the omission to frame the charge against
the accused person and in that case appellant was a judicial officer and
posted as Additional Sessions Judge and for not framing the charge under
the specific section, the matter has been travelled up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, but in the case in hand, no such is the issue. Thus, this
judgment is not helping the petitioner.
10. In the case of Union of India Versus Prafulla Kumar Samal
& Anr. (Supra), the question before the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the
discharge of the accused, before framing of the charge, thus this judgment
is also not helping to the petitioner.
11. The purpose of framing of the charge is to put the accused at
notice regarding the offence, for which he is being tried before the court of
competent jurisdiction. For want to requisite information of the offence
and details thereof, the accused should not suffer prejudice or there should
not be failure of justice. In view of the above, the Court has perused the
contents of the FIR and finds that there are allegations against the
petitioner of poisoning the deceased. No case of interference is made out,
as such, this petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
