Framing Of Charge- Probative Value Of Materials Cannot Be Gone Into, Material Brought On Record By Prosecution To Be Accepted As True: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that at the stage of framing of a charge, the probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into and that such material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar added that it is not obligatory for the judge at the stage of framing of charges to consider in detail and weigh in a sensitive balance as to whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not.

"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. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused," the Court said.

The Court added that while deciding the question of framing of charge in a criminal case, the court is not to apply exactly the standard and test which it finally applies for determining the guilt or otherwise.

It was further observed that wha 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 was dealing with a revision petition filed challenging the order dated 10.1.2020 passed by the District and Session Judge, East Karkardooma Courts framing charge against the petitioner under Section 328, 354B and 385 of the Indian Penal Code.

It was the case of the prosecution that the accused made complainant to take a toffee and supari laced with some intoxicating l substance at a Hotel, with an intent to facilitate an offence of outraging her modesty. Thereafter, it was alleged that he also disrobed her and also put her in fear of getting her video viral and demanded money to extort Rs.2 Lacs from her.

At the outset, the Court observed 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. It said that 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," the Court said.

It added "To put it differently, if the courts were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame a charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that accused has committed the offence. At the stage of framing of a charge, 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."

The Court noted that the trial court while passing the order for framing of charge had observed that from the totality of facts and circumstances prima facie case for the offences was made out against the petitioner.

Furthermore, the Court was of the view that the allegations made by the victim against the petitioner were specific and that she har assigned the role to the petitioner and veracity of her statement could only be tested during the course of her cross-examination.

"It has also come in the CDR record that the petitioner and the complainant were known to each other prior to the incident and now whether the physical relations were consensual or forced is a matter of evidence which could only be tested when the victim would appear in the witness box and her statement can be analysed in depth. At this stage, and at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie view is to be taken," the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned order and the plea was dismissed.

Title: SETTU v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 220

Click Here To Read Order