ORDER [ENTITY], J.
1. This [ACT] has been preferred against order dt. 23-2-1999 of the Special Judge (Communal Riots Man [ENTITY] Murder Case) Jaipur whereby the petitioner has been charged for offence under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] & [SECTION], [ACT].
2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as unfolded in FIR lodged on 11-10-96 at Police Station Bajaj Nagar (Jaipur) by Dr. [ENTITY], is that on 10-10-96 at about 11-15p.m.the informant along with his wife & two daughters when saw outside their house, found his neighbour [ENTITY] and his son [ENTITY] hurling abuses to them and while they asked not be abuse, but [ENTITY] duly armed with Bamboo (stick) started beating them and meanwhile son of [ENTITY] viz. petitioner thrusted knife into right side of stomach of his wife (informant's), besides beating with latins on her head and so also his head, it has been stated in the report that at the time of scuffle, his tenant [ENTITY], Smt. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] besides other neighbour witnessed the incident of beating at the instance of [ENTITY] and his son and they tried to catch hold of [ENTITY] but he fled away in a gypsy. Thereupon, injured Smt. [ENTITY] wife of informant Dr. [ENTITY] was taken to SMS Hospital for treatment. Upon aforesaid report the police registered crime and started investigation. After usual investigation the police filed challan against the present petitioner and his father [ENTITY]. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and on the basis of the evidence and material on the case diaryplaced before it, took prima facie view that the petitioner (accused) be charged for commission of offence under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT], vide his order dt. 23-2-99. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Shri [ENTITY], learned counel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has no concern with the alleged incident and the trial Court has committed an error in not appreciating the fact that in the FIR the petitioner is not named but one [ENTITY] who is resident of neighbourhood of the informant, has been arrayed as an accused. Shri [ENTITY] contended that the petitioner was never called nor known in the vicinity as [ENTITY] but is always known and called by name of [ENTITY] and so, he has falsely been implicated in the case due to some animosity with the complainant who made collusion with the police and therefore the police has not made efforts to trace out actual culprit named as [ENTITY]. Shri [ENTITY] further contended that the complainant being doctor has managed to get FIR lodged and then issued injury report of grievous nature so as to book the accused in a case of serious offence whereas there was no injury on the person of the injured which could have been of grievous nature or dangerous or caused death in the ordinary course of nature, whereas the allegations in the FIR are wholly untrustworthy and do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that at the stage of framing of the charge, the learned trial Court has to arrive at prima facie view of the matter on the basis of material placed before it as contemplated in [SECTION] [ACT]
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public Prosecutor and have thoroughly perused the case diary produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] provide as under :-
227. Discharge.- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.
[SECTION]. Framing of charge.- (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence;
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.
7. Prima ficie, I am of the view that at the stage of framing of the charge, the standard of test and weighing of evidence meticulously is not to be applied and what in fact has to be appreciated that if on the basis of material placed before it, there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed offence cognizable by it, the trial Court shall proceed with framing of the charge, thereafter direct the accused to face trial in accordance with law. Thus, only prima facie view has to be drawn by the trial Court on the material placed before it which gives rise to grave suspicion against the accused and if on the contrary material placed before it does not give rise to suspicion against the accused, the trial Court is fully competent to discharge the accused under [SECTION], [ACT] Every case in its final analysis will have to depend upon its own facts and circumstances. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the Courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.
8. The law en the subject has been well settled by the Apex Court in Nicanjan [ENTITY] Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja (1990) 4 SCC 76 : (1990 Cri LJ 1869) wherein it has been laid down that at [SECTION] and [SECTION] stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.
9. The aforesaid view finds support from earlier decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Jagir [ENTITY], AIR 1973 SC 2407 : (1973 Cri LJ 1589) wherein it has been observed as under :-
A Criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the Courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.
10. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] wherein in an appeal preferred against the High Court's judgment of discharging the accused in exercise of its revisional powers against the order of the trial Court framing the charges on the basis of prima facie of the matter for offence punishable under [SECTION] & [SECTION], [ACT] against alleged spiritual teacher, the Apex Court held that the High Court committed illegality in discharging the accused for lack of independent corroboration, because at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to consider the material with a view to assess culpability of accused and possibility of conviction need not be taken into account.
11. In the instant case, upon careful perusal of the case diary which was made available by the learned Public Prosecutor, prima facie I find that there is sufficient ground to presume from the statements of Dr. [ENTITY], his wife [ENTITY] (injured), his tenant [ENTITY], and [ENTITY] recorded under [SECTION], [ACT], so also medico legal report of injured [ENTITY] prima facie lead to the conclusion of the culpability of the petitioner. All the aforesaid witnesses specifically assign positive role to the petitioner by name of [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] as the assailant responsible for causing injuries with knife on the person of injured [ENTITY]. Injury report of injured [ENTITY] stated that she had sustained stab incised wound 4 x 2 cm deep on right subcostal region oblique. This injury was assigned as caused by sharp weapon and grevious in nature which is corroborated by X-ray report and operation note at which the doctor has opined this injury as dangerous to life. All the aforesaid witnesses who are of same vicinity and colony where undoubtedly [ENTITY] who is father of the present petitioner resides, corroboratively state that son of [ENTITY] (who is neighbour of the complainant) is [ENTITY] (present petitioner) who is also called as [ENTITY] in his house and the neighbourhood of the complainant. In this view of the material on record, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that [ENTITY] is somebody and not the petitioner and therefore, it is a case of mistaken identity, is totally misconceived and not sustainable. In my considered view, version of the complainant, his wife (injured), his tenant and other neighbours is prima facie believable which cannot be rejected on the fanciful grounds. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was fully justified in directing to frame the charge against the petitioner for offences under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT]. He committed no error of sifting and weighing the material placed before the Court by applying the standard of test and proof for deciding whether the petitioner is guilty or not. The material placed before the Court disclosed a strong suspicion against the petitioner, inasmuch as the material at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offences. No prejudice would cause to the accused since he will have sufficient opportunity of leading their evidence in his evidence on the points raised here also, whereas greater prejudice may ensue to the complainant if the accused is discharged at this stage though no conclusion of guilty can be arrived at, but there is suffient ground in the case diary and material evidence with challan produced on record, which lead to culpability against the petitioner. At the framing of the charge, as a matter of principle, this Court should exercise its revisional powers sparingly and in exceptional cases where grave miscarriage has resulted to the accused in proceeding with. However, as discussed above, the present case is not exceptional one resulting in grave miscarriage to the petitioner.
12. As a result of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The observations made at this stage would in no case influence the Court below at conclusion of the trial. The case diary be returned to the learned Public Prosecutor under an acknowledgment receipt on record.