'Strong Suspicion' Of Prima Facie Case Based On Materials On Record Sufficient To Frame Charges; Need Not Assess Probative Value Of Evidence: Delhi HC

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar held:

"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."

Revision Petition

The Complainant, along with his son, went to attend the wedding ceremony of the Accused/ Revisionist. The Accused allegedly fired a pistol during the ceremony, which impacted the Complainant's son's chest, eventually leading to his death.

The Case was heard before the Additional Sessions Judge Neelofer Parveen, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Vide Order dated 9.1.2010, the Judge ordered framing of charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Aggrieved, the Accused filed a Revision Petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish a murder case.

Probative Value of Evidence

The Court limited its scrutiny of the evidence to determine whether a prima facie case was made out for charging the Accused with Section 302 of the IPC. It held that:

"It is well-settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has power to shift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima-facie case against accused has been made out."

Elaborating, the Court held that if the evidence suggests "great suspicion" against the accused, the Court will be justified in framing the charge. The probable value of the evidence or the defense need not be assessed meticulously. Putting it definitively, the Court held that:

"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…… What is required to be seen is whether there is strong suspicion which may lead to the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence."

The Court cited the Supreme Court in Union of India vs Prafulla Kumar AIR 1979 Supreme Court 366, State of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh AIR 1997 SC 2018, and other cases to support this view.

Prima Facie case

The Court concluded that a prima facie case had been established for framing charges under Section 302 of the IPC against the Accused. This was on the following counts:

1. The materials and statement placed by the Prosecution established the commission of the offence as a probable consequence. The Order of the ASJ had considered the materials and the Complainant's statement that the Accused had fired one gunshot towards his son. Thus, the ASJ came to the justified conclusion that a case for framing of charge existed.

2. No material was placed on record at the time of argument on charge by the Accused, despite relying on precedents.

3. Questions of motive and intention raised by the Accused would be seen during the trial only.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Revision Petition, finding no infirmity with the Order of the ASJ.

Case Name: Shakiluddin @ Babloo v. The State CRL.REV.P.-150/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 64

Coram: Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar

Judgment Date: 4.1.2022