9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Procedure, the judge is not required record his reasons for framing the charges against the Accused. Upon hearing the parties and based upon the allegations and taking note of the allegations in the charge sheet, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused and framed the charges against the Accused-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. While so, the High Court was not right in interfering with the order of the trial court framing the charges against the Accused-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and the High Court, in our view, erred in quashing the charges framed against the Accused. The impugned order cannot therefore be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed. - R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna And Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. For the Appellant : Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Adv. For the Respondents : Santosh Kumar, Shekhar Kumar, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Mushtaq Ahmad, Harsh Parashar, Tanvi Bhatnagar and Chanakya Sharma, Advs. JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2016. The said revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2016. 5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have prayed for anticipatory bail and the same was dismissed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, West Nimad, Mandleswar vide order dated 10.09.2018. Being aggrieved, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed appeal before the High Court and the High Court had granted anticipatory bail to them vide order dated 19.09.2018. Against the grant of anticipatory bail, the Appellant-complainant has filed SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 39785/2018 before the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court by order dated 14.12.2018 has issued notice. In the meanwhile, charge sheet has been filed against the Accused-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code on 26.09.2018. Upon hearing the prosecution and also the Respondents-Accused, vide order dated 12.12.2018, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleswar has found that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the Accused and framed the charges against the Accused-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... infirmity. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the impugned order and materials on record. 11. As per the allegations in the charge sheet, on the date of occurrence i.e. 24.12.2015, the Accused-Respondents Ghanshyam and Bhagwan went with deceased Gopal Saran to the farm of Ghanshyam for ploughing the land with tractor and that all the three consumed liquor together at the place of incident. Thus, as per the allegations in the charge sheet, the deceased was last seen alive in the company of Accused-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As per the statement of Usha, wife of Ghanshyam and Nisha, daughter of Ghanshyam, the Accused-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had returned home at 09.00 pm in the night of 24.12.2015. Though, the body of deceased was found in the field of Respondent-Accused Ghanshyam, he did not inform the family of deceased Gopal Saran nor informed the police about the same. In the complaint filed by the Appellant before the Magistrate, the Appellant has alleged that when she went running near to her husband's dead body, Ganesh son of Ghanshyam caught hold of her and forcibly locked her in a room in his house and did not allow her to go near the dead b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the Section exists, then the court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the Accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case. There is a fine distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section 227 is the expression of a definite opinion and judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should form an opinion that the Accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is an approach which is impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code. ........... 19. At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the Accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the trial. 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 presumption of the guilt of the Accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the Accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the Accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the Accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pan as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
