Gaurav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Vijay Lakshmi, J—This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.5..2015, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Court No. 2, Bulandshahr in S.T. No. 315 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 939 of 2014, Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr, whereby the learned Court below has framed charges against the revisionist. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the charges framed against the revisionist under section 498-A and 304-B, I.P.C. alternatively under section 302 I.P.C. and 304 of I.P.C. were not warranted as there is no material on record for framing charge under aforesaid sections. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the deceased Smt. Ruchi had committed suicide by setting her ablaze after sprinkling kerosene oil on her body so no offence under the aforesaid sections is made out against the revisionist.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that suicidal cases are also covered under section 304-B, I.P.C. because suicide is also an unnatural death. He has further submitted that framing of alternative charge under section 302 of I.P.C. alongwith section 304-B, I.P.C. is also necessary in wake of guidelines of Apex and the Court below has not committed any illegality by framing charges under the aforesaid sections.

The impugned order shows that the Court below has framed the charges on the basis of the evidence as available on record. At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court concerned is sufficient and the Courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence as available on record at the initial stage of framing charges is to be considered by the Court concerned.

In State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 : (2005) 99 CLT 348 : (2005) 1 CTC 134 : (2004) 10 JT 303 : (2004) 10 SCALE 50 : (2005) 1 SCC 568 : (2004) AIRSCW 6813 : (2004) 8 Supreme 568 , the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge.

In Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI, AIR 2007 SC 2149 : (2007) CriLJ 3257 : (2007) 7 JT 181 : (2007) 7 SCALE 25 : (2007) 5 SCC 403 : (2007) 6 SCR 324 : (2007) 2 UJ 696 : (2007) AIRSCW 3683 : (2007) 4 Supreme 280 , it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. If on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.

In Smt. Om Wati and Another Vs. State, through Delhi Admn. and Others, AIR 2001 SC 1507 : (2001) CriLJ 1723 : (2001) 2 Crimes 59 : (2001) 3 JT 585 : (2001) 2 SCALE 505 : (2001) 4 SCC 333 : (2001) 2 SCR 482 : (2001) AIRSCW 1230 : (2001) 2 Supreme 423 , it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and farfetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons.

In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Choudhary and Others, AIR 2009 SC 9 : (2009) CriLJ 338 : (2008) 11 JT 460 : (2008) 13 SCALE 133 : (2008) 10 SCC 681 , it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge.

In wake of the aforesaid legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the prima facie evidence available on record the revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. The revision is accordingly dismissed.