At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges, Possibility Of Accused Person's Acquittal Not To Considered, Rather It Is To Be Seen Whether Prima Facie Case Is Made Out Or Not: Rajasthan HC

The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order passed by trial court, framing charges against the present accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 308, 447, 427, 341, 323 & 325 read with Section 34 IPC.

Dr, Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, ruled,

"Such medical evidence cannot be doubted, that too, at the stage of framing of charges, where as per the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the possibility of acquittal of the accused person are not to be taken into consideration, rather it is to be seen whether prima facie case is made out or not; the impugned order passed by the learned trial court clearly reveals that the said proposition, amongst others, has been kept into consideration by the learned trial court, and rightly so."

Notably, the court stated that the injury report of the injured/complainant did reveal grievous injuries, but none of them have been opined to be dangerous to life; however, the medical report showing the extraction of pellet from the lip of the victim has changed the dimension of the case.

The court observed that the impugned order passed by trial court, is a well reasoned speaking order, which lays out that the accused-petitioners, armed with weapon and pistol, verbally abused the complainant and his associates, and threatened their lives.

Relying on Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors (2012) and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. (2020), it was further observed by the court that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, as was laid down by the Apex Court.

Essentially, as per the accused-petitioner, the respondent-Nanak Singh, while undergoing treatment at a Community Health Centre gave a parcha bayan to the police, alleging therein that on that date at about 12 o'clock, his son and his nephew, along with the respondent were doing work in his agricultural field. At that time, some persons, including respondent entered the agricultural field of the complainant, and accused-Mahendra Singh, who was carrying pistol in his hand, fired upon the son of the injured/complainant, while using abusive language, with an intention to kill him; but somehow his son managed to save his life.

Thereafter, when the son of the respondent rushed towards his jeep and started the same, the accused persons surrounded the same, whereupon accused-Balvinder Singh, with an intention to kill the respondent's son opened gunfire, and the pellet whereof hit his lips, resultantly blood started oozing. It was further alleged that accused-Kuldeep Singh was amongst the persons, who attacked the jeep of the complainant and broke the windshield thereof. It was also alleged that thereafter, many acts were done by the accused persons, with a clear intention to kill the complainant party. Later on ,an FIR was also registered.

The accused-petitioners' counsel counsel submitted that after investigation, the concerned investigating office did not find the offences to be made out under Section 307 & 336 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, but found the offences under Sections 308, 427, 341, 325 & 34 IPC to be made out, and accordingly, charge-sheet was filed against the present accused-petitioners and the said Darshan Singh for the offences under Section 308, 447, 427, 341, 323, 325 & 34 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, wherefrom the case was transferred to the learned trial court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar.

He also submitted that the trial court thereafter, without due appreciation of the evidence and material placed before it, framed the charges against the present accused-petitioners, despite the fact that the present criminal proceedings launched by the complainant against the accused-petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of law; this more so, when the FIR was registered after an unexplained delay of nine hours, as the incident in question alleged to have occurred at 12'o clock, whereas the FIR was registered at 9:00 p.m.

The Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the complainant oppose the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioners. They submitted that at the stage of framing of charges, what is to be seen, is whether prima facie case is made out or not; and the evidence collected by the investigating agency during the investigation are sufficient to frame the charges against the petitioners, and thus, the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. Moreover, as per counsel, the facts of the case clearly reveal that the criminal act committed by the accused-persons could even have resulted in causing the death of the complainant party.

Case Title: Mahendra Singh & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 142

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment