Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Section 216 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Jasvinder Saini & Ors vs State(Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi) on 2 July, 2013
If in the light of the aforesaid principles of law the impugned
order is considered, none of the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner
to assail it is legally tenable. From the material available on record and the
reasons recorded by the learned Court below in support of the impugned
8
order reveals that the same has not been passed merely on the basis of
order dated 22.11.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rajbir @ Raju and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana (supra), but after
considering the evidence produced by the prosecution during the course of
trial after following the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini and Ors. Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT
of Delhi) (supra). In my view no illegality has been committed by the
court below by observing that it was for the petitioner to explain how the
deceased died, from where the poison was procured by which her death
was caused and how it was administered to the deceased as these facts
can only be within the special knowledge of the petitioner as from the
evidence available on record it is prima facie shown that the cause of
death is by poison (aluminium phosphide) and at the time of incident
petitioner was also present alongwith the deceased and the bottle of
poison was not found at the place of incident when it was inspected by the
police during the course of investigation. If the deceased herself consumed
the aforesaid poison, then how the bottle in which the poison was
contained was removed from the place of incident, is a fact which can be
determined only after evidence is led by the parties during the course of
trial but it is a material fact relevant to frame charge for offence under
Section 302 IPC. I am of the view that the learned court below after
referring the material available on record and recording his prima facie
satisfaction has exercised its discretion under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to frame
additional charge for offence under Section 302 IPC against the petitioner.
There is no error in it requiring interference by this Court.
Rajbir & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 26 May, 2009
If in the light of the aforesaid principles of law the impugned
order is considered, none of the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner
to assail it is legally tenable. From the material available on record and the
reasons recorded by the learned Court below in support of the impugned
8
order reveals that the same has not been passed merely on the basis of
order dated 22.11.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rajbir @ Raju and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana (supra), but after
considering the evidence produced by the prosecution during the course of
trial after following the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini and Ors. Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT
of Delhi) (supra). In my view no illegality has been committed by the
court below by observing that it was for the petitioner to explain how the
deceased died, from where the poison was procured by which her death
was caused and how it was administered to the deceased as these facts
can only be within the special knowledge of the petitioner as from the
evidence available on record it is prima facie shown that the cause of
death is by poison (aluminium phosphide) and at the time of incident
petitioner was also present alongwith the deceased and the bottle of
poison was not found at the place of incident when it was inspected by the
police during the course of investigation. If the deceased herself consumed
the aforesaid poison, then how the bottle in which the poison was
contained was removed from the place of incident, is a fact which can be
determined only after evidence is led by the parties during the course of
trial but it is a material fact relevant to frame charge for offence under
Section 302 IPC. I am of the view that the learned court below after
referring the material available on record and recording his prima facie
satisfaction has exercised its discretion under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to frame
additional charge for offence under Section 302 IPC against the petitioner.
There is no error in it requiring interference by this Court.
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 January, 2014
The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2014) 3
SCC 92, although mainly dealt with the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C.
but at the same time the requirement to frame charge against an accused
for an offence was also considered and in this regard in para 100 of the
report it was observed that however, there is a series of cases wherein this
Court while dealing with the provisions of Sections 227, 228, 329, 240,
241, 242 and 245, has consistently held that the court at the stage of
framing of the charge has to apply its mind to the question whether or not
there is any ground for presuming the commission of an offence by the
accused. The court has to see as to whether the material brought on
record reasonably connect the accused with the offence. Nothing more is
required to be inquired into. While dealing with the aforesaid provisions,
the test of prima facie case is to be applied. The court has to find out
whether the materials offered by the prosecution to be adduced as
evidence are sufficient for court to proceed against the accused further.