1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.666 of 2018 1. [ENTITY] 2. [ENTITY] 3. [ENTITY] 4. Mukesh @ Umesh Prasad @ Gagla 5. [ENTITY] 6. [ENTITY] 7. [ENTITY] Appellants Versus 1. The [ENTITY] 2. [ENTITY] Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mrs. [ENTITY], Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. Order No.10 Dated- 20.08.2018
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
Though notice was issued to the respondent no.2 in the address mentioned in the F.I.R. but the same could not be served upon her because her house could not be indicated by any persons of the locality to the process server of the Court.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Dhanbad in [CASE NUMBER] whereby the learned court below has rejected the prayer of the appellants to discharge them from this case.
Mrs. [ENTITY] the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that there are two separate occurrences. The first alleged occurrence took place at 07:00 P.M. The appellant nos. 5, 6 & 7 came to the house of the respondent no.2-informant looking for her son and intentionally insulted and intimidated the informant with intent to humiliate her being a member of Scheduled Caste by abusing the informant that she is a member of lower caste and she is earning her livelihood by cleaning the utensils of others and pushed her. The second occurrence took place when the son of the informant and her daughter-in-law were allegedly assaulted by the appellants after the son followed by the daughter-in-law of the respondent no. 2 went to the appellant no.2 to enquire about the matter. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant nos. 1 to 4 were no way associated with the first occurrence and as the specific caste name of the respondent no.2 has not been allegedly uttered by the appellant nos. 5 to 7, hence no offence punishable under the penal provisions of [ACT] is made out. It is also submitted that so far as the second alleged occurrence is concerned, the allegation against the appellants are general and omnibus in nature. There is no specific allegation, as to which appellant assaulted on which part of the body of the victims. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order of learned court below be set aside and the appellants be discharged.
The learned Addl.P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned order and submitted that there is specific allegation against each of the appellants of having committed the offence for which charge sheet has been submitted against them and it is also submitted that during the course of investigation police has collected materials to constitute the offence punishable under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Hence, it is submitted that there being no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned court below, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.
Having heard the submissions made at the bar, before adverting to the facts of the case it will be pertinent to refer to the settled principle of law relating to discharge at the stage of framing charge. At the stage of framing charge which is the beginning and the initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial 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. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter at the stage of framing the charge. 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. At such initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of [PRECEDENT]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reminded the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far-fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons by observing that unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protracting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled-for and unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law, in the case of [PRECEDENT] by holding in paragraph 8 as under:
"8. At the stage of passing the order in terms of [SECTION] of the Code, the court has merely to peruse the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If upon consideration, the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, the Judge must proceed to frame charge in terms of [SECTION] of the Code. Only in a case where it is shown that the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alone the court can discharge the accused. The court is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of evidence and material placed before it at this stage. This Court in [PRECEDENT] cautioned the High Courts to be loath in interfering at the stage of framing the charges against the accused. Self-restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice staring the court in the face. The opinion on many matters can differ depending upon the person who views it. There may be as many opinions on a particular point, as there are courts but that would not justify the High Court to interdict the trial. Generally, it would be appropriate for the High Court to allow the trial to proceed. (Emphasis supplied) Considering the allegations made in the FIR and the materials collected during the investigation containing the allegations against the appellants of having committed offences under the penal provisions of [ACT] and the penal provisions of [ACT], in the light of the said settled principle of law as discussed above, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order of the learned lower court below warranting interference of this court, thus this appeal being without any merit is dismissed. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is only for the limited purpose of deciding the appeal and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
AFR/Sonu- ([ENTITY], J.)