Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977
In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 39 ], it
was held that at the stage of framing of charge it is not obligatory for the
Judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether
the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused or not. At that stage, the court is not to see whether there is
sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure
to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of
charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event it is not open to
say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Manju Ram Kalita vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009
The
CR No. 102/2020 Page 6 of 10 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
complainant has herself refused to go with the police in search of her
dowry articles. The charge has been framed in a routine manner without
considering the material available on record. It is urged that all the family
members of the petitioner have been roped in the present matter by the
complainant for her personal vendate. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has
also relied upon the judgments in the matter of Manju Ram Kalita v.
State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330, to contend that petty quarrels cannot
be termed as "cruelty" to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC.
State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004
In State of Orissa v. Devender Nath Padhi dated of
CR No. 102/2020 Page 8 of 10 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
decision 29.11.2004 Crl. Appeal No. 497/2001, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that at the stage of framing of charge the defence raised by the
accused is not to be considered.
Supdt. & Remembrancer Of Legal Affairs ... vs Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors on 23 August, 1979
In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs,
West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others [(1980) 1 SCR 323] a
three judge Bench held that the Magistrate at the stage of framing charges
had to see whether the facts alleged and sought to be proved by the
prosecution prima facie disclose the commission of offence on general
consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating
police officer.
Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978
He
has further relied upon Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3
SCC 4, to contend that if two views are equally possible and the court is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him gave rise to some
suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, the court would be
justified to discharge the accused. It is urged that in the present case,
nature of allegations made in the complaint constitute a fit case of
discharge of the petitioner in the present matter.
State Of Delhi vs Gyan Devi And Ors on 18 October, 2000
11. As regards framing of charge in the case of State of Delhi v.
Gyan Devi and Others, [(2000) 8 SCC 239] the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to
CR No. 102/2020 Page 7 of 10 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the
prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the
materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons.
1