Delhi High Court
Davinder Kumar vs State on 1 October, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(40)DRJ799
Author: S.K. Mahajan
Bench: S.K. Mahajan
JUDGMENT S.K. Mahajan, J.
(1) Being aggrieved by the order dated 3rd November, 1995 framing charges against the petitioner for his having committed offences punishable under Sections 347/365/506/323 & 386/34 Ipc, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order on the ground that there was no material before the Court for framing charges against him. The facts, in short, relevant for deciding this petition are :-
(2) That the complainant and his wife were induced by his co-brother and cousin Ishwar Chand Harit and his friends by misrepresentation to accompany them to village Prangarh where all of them had alleged to have tied the hands and feet of the complainant after threatening to kill him and had beaten the complainant and his wife and robbed them of Rs.4,000.00 , ring, identity card, watch and golden chain, etc. and also obtained their signatures and thumb impression on certain papers. It is further alleged that after wrongfully confining the complainant and his wife for the whole night in village Prangarh, Ishwar Chand Harit and other persons came back to the house of the complainant and removed one Vcp, golden Tikka of his wife and some documents of property from the almirah of the house. In his statement the complainant said that he can identify all the said persons if they were brought before him.
(3) During investigation, Ishwar Chand Harit made a confessional statement in the presence of the complainant that he along with his accomplices Ravinder Singh of Sikandarabad; Shakeel Ahmed @ Shakeel of Shah Nagar; and Devender Kumar @ Binder of Prangarh and one more person, who had been brought by Shakeel with him, had abducted Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife Raj Kumari on 9th August, 1989 from his house and had beaten them after they had been taken to Prangarh. It was also disclosed by him that he had snatched the golden chain and ring after wrongfully confining them in village Prangarh and had got his signatures on the stamp papers and after coming back to Delhi, he had removed certain articles from his house. Ishwar Chand Harit also got the golden chain, ring, driving licence of the complainant, his identity card, etc. recovered which were taken into possession by the police.
(4) After the case was committed to Sessions, charges were framed against the accused, including the petitioner, by the Additional Sessions Judge on 3rd November, 1995. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of the material before the court, no charge could be framed against the petitioner and the involvement of the petitioner in the case is highly improbable and there was no direct incriminating material against him. It is submitted that the petitioner had been illegally involved in the case and acting on the confessional statement of the co-accused no charges could be framed against him and the Additional Sessions Judge has not given any reasons for framing charges against the petitioner.
(5) MR.MITTAL has placed reliance upon the judgments reported as Kapil Kumar Vs. State (1996) 1 Ad (Delhi) 1986; Pradeep Kumar Vs. State ; Rajinder Singh Sethia Vs. State 1995 Jcc 546 and Union of India Vs. Praful Kumar Samal .
(6) In Union of India Vs. Praful Kumar Samal, the Supreme Court had observed that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused had been made out. Where the material placed before the Court disclosed grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his rights to discharge the accused.
(7) This judgment was relied upon by this court in Rajinder Singh Sethia Vs. State (Supra) and it was held that the court would not require the prosecution to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt at the time of framing charge as it is required to do so only at the time of conclusion of the case, and if two views are possible of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution and the Judge is satisfied with the view that no grave suspicion against the accused was made out, the court will be fully justified in discharging the accused.
(8) In Pradeep Kumar Vs. State (Supra), it was held by this Court that the court while considering the question of framing the charges has not to act as the mouthpiece of the prosecution and has to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material collected by the prosecution. The court is not to act mechanically in framing the charge. It must apply its mind to the material on record and the argument of the parties. Short reasons must be given by the court so that on the reading of the order, one can perceive clearly as to how and on what basis the trial court came to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out against the accused.
(9) In Kapil Kumar Vs. State (Supra), it was held that merely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused without any corroborative evidence, no charge could be framed against the accused.
(10) It is no doubt true that the court is not to act as the mouthpiece of the prosecution and the charge has to be framed considering the broad probabilities of the case and not mechanically, however, at the time of framing of charge, the Court has not to apply the same standard of test and judgment which it finally applies before recording a finding of guilt or otherwise. At this stage, what the Court has to see is whether there is ground enough for presuming that the accused has committed the offence for which he has been charged. The Court is not to judge the truth, veracity and effect of evidence before it at that time meticulously with a view to examine as to whether it provides sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial was sure to culminate in conviction.
(11) Coming to the facts of this case, it may be noted that Ishwar Chand Harit in his confessional statement has stated that he along with his accomplices, including the present petitioner, had abducted Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife, Ram Kumari, on 9th August, 1989 from his house and had beaten them after they had been taken to Prangarh and were illegally confined at the threat of being killed. The complainant, Narender Kumar Sharma, in his statement before the police duly identified the petitioner being one of the persons who had tied their hands and feet and had beaten them with rifle and rods after closing the door and was asking the complainant to tell them as to where was the key of the locker and other documents of the house and goods. Ishwar Chand Harit in the presence of the petitioner and other co-accused at the point of rifle asked the complainant about the locker, cash and documents and left the place after leaving Shakeel Ahmed, Ravinder Kumar Tewatia and the petitioner to take care of the complainant and his wife. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given reasons for framing charge against the accused.
(12) The aforesaid material on record, in my opinion, was sufficient to disclose grave suspicion against the petitioner about his involvement in the commission of offence. As already mentioned above, the court, at this stage, is not required to judge the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence before it meticulously with a view to examine as to whether it provided sufficient grounds for conviction of the accused or whether trial was sure to culminate conviction. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the petitioner that there was no material before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to frame charges against him.
(13) In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.