2009 (9) TMI 1065 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order directing framing of charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Evaluation of the prosecution's evidence and statements.
3. Contradictory statements and their impact on the case.
4. Legal principles for framing charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order Directing Framing of Charges:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 18th April 2009, which directed the framing of charges against him under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with FIR No. 765/2006. The petitioner argued that the trial court's decision to frame charges was not based on a proper evaluation of the evidence and that there was no prima facie case against him.

2. Evaluation of the Prosecution's Evidence and Statements:
The prosecution's case was based on a complaint filed by the deceased's father, which alleged that the deceased was attacked by Mahesh Sharma, Manish Sharma, and Prashant Bhaskar @ Rinku. The initial statements recorded by the police on 6th April 2006 from the complainant, his son Vipin Mittal, and the deceased's wife Deepika did not implicate the petitioner. These statements mentioned a trivial altercation and scuffle but did not suspect anyone of causing the deceased's death.

3. Contradictory Statements and Their Impact on the Case:
The initial statements recorded immediately after the incident did not mention the petitioner. However, supplementary statements recorded on 10th July 2006, three months later, implicated the petitioner. The court noted that these supplementary statements were contradictory and made significant improvements over the initial statements. The court found that there was no explanation for the delay and the changes in the statements, making them unreliable.

4. Legal Principles for Framing Charges:
The court emphasized the principles for framing charges, stating that at this stage, the court must evaluate the materials and documents on record to determine if there is a prima facie case. The court should not act as a mere post-office for the prosecution but must exercise judicial mind to ascertain if the evidence discloses the ingredients of the alleged offence. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja, which outlined the scope and ambit of consideration at the stage of framing charges.

The court also referred to the judgment in Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), which stated that the court must evaluate the material to see if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. The court noted that the material placed on record by the prosecution in this case was contradictory and did not raise a strong suspicion against the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to make out a case raising strong suspicion of the petitioner's involvement in the commission of the offence. The order dated 18th April 2009, directing and framing charges against the petitioner, was set aside and quashed. The petition was allowed, and the charges against the petitioner were dismissed.