Jodhan Singh and Others vs State of U.P.

I.P. Singh, J.—Criminal Revision No. 959 of 1982 has been filed Under Sections 397/401, Code of Criminal Procedure by Jodhan Singh, Yashpal and seven others, accused-revisionists, while Cr. Misc. Application No. 3563 of 1982 has been filed by Satvir and six other accused and Cr. Misc. Application No. 3171 of 1982 has been filed by Jodhan Singh and Yashpal accused only.

The prayer in these three cases is to set aside or quash the order dated 5-5-82 passed by II Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in S. T. No. 295 of 1979, directing charges Under Sections 120-B, 120-B/302, 147 and 149/302. IPC and also framing charges u/s 25, Arms Act in S. T. Nos. 52 and 53 of 1980, pending in the said court. Of course, it is further prayed that after setting aside the said charges the applicants be discharged and acquitted of the said charges.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants in all the three cases and the learned AGA. It appears that in the present murder case there is no eye-witness of the murders. The entire prosecution case depends on circumstantial evidence. Those circumstances have been enumerated as (i) to (x) in para 17 of the two applications moved u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.

The argument is that none of these circumstances connects the applicants or the revisionists with the crime in question.

The relevant sections which the learned Sessions Judge had to keep in mind at the time of framing charges against the accused are Sections 227 and 228, Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

Section 228, Code of Criminal Procedure provides:

(1) If after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for persuming that the accused has committed an offence which--

(a)............

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2)....

Thus for discharging the accused the Judge has to come to a conclusion for reasons to be recorded that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For framing a charge he is to be of opinion only that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence.

It has been held in Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others, that " At the stage of framing charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence. The Magistrate has, therefore, to consider the question as to framing of charge on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating Police Officer. The standard test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or other-wise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. "

It is, therefore, clear that at the stage of framing of charges meticulous scrutiny or appreciation of material which is placed before the court by the prosecution i. e. investigating officer is not to be resorted to but only a strong suspicion founded upon that material, which may lead the court to form the presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and the participation of the accused charge-sheeted by the police, is sufficient.

The learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 5-5-82, after giving a brief resume of the material placed before him, concluded that "on a consideration of the entire material on record, I am satisfied that prima facie the accused Jodhan and Yashpal appear to have committed an offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code while the remaining seven accused namely, Satbir, Jagbir, Harbir, Bhopal, Jaipal, Dharamvir and Mohan Lal appear to have committed offences punishable u/s 302 read with Section 120-B, 147 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. "

On the above basis, order for framing charges against the accused or revisionists was passed I see no illegality or irregularity in the same. No interference is called for in the matter in the present two applications u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure or for that matter in the revision before this Court.

In the result, Criminal Revision No. 959 of 1982 and the two connected Criminal Misc. Application No. 3563 of 1982 and 3171 of 1982 have no merits and are hereby dismissed.

The lower courts record be sent back earliest for early disposal.