IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.90 OF 2007 1. Gurjeet Singh S/o Mohan Singh 2. Surendra Sharma S/o Keval Krishna Both R/o Laxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Compound Iqbalpur District Haridwar ……… Revisionists Versus State of Uttaranchal & another .…... Respondents Dated: December 22, 2008 Sri Navneet Kaushki, learned counsel for the revisionists. Sri Tanuj Semwal, learned AGA for the State. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 5.5.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.310/2005, State Vs. Gurjeet Singh and another, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C. has framed the charge against the accused/revisionists under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and u/s 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). 2. I have heard Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the revisionists as well as Sri Tanuj Semwal, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Avtar Singh was an employee in the Sugarcane Department of 2 Iqbalpur Sugar Mill. On 26.04.2003, Jagjeet Singh got the information from Avtar Singh on telephone that some of the employees of the Sugar Mill were threatening him (Avtar Singh) to leave the service and he was afraid due to this incident. When Jagjeet Singh accompanied by Subhash Chandra reached his office-Iqbalpur Sugar Mill then at about 3:00 P:M Gurjeet Singh armed with DANDA and Surendra Sharma armed with TAMANCHA also reached there and by calling Avtar Singh CHAMAAR stated that now you have called your associates to help you. **l ky s pekj pVVs v c r wus v i us ennxkj cqy k fy , gSaA** It was further stated that the accused/revisionists Gurjeet Singh and Surendra Sharma threatened Avtar Singh to kill him and by abusing him they started assaulting him. On this, Avtar Singh made noise. After hearing the noise, other people gathered at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, Avtar Singh was taken to Devband. It was further stated that due to the injuries caused by the accused/revisionists Gurjeet Singh and Surendra Sharma, Avtar Singh became unconscious on the way. Then he was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Devband where he died due to the above said injuries. With the same averments, F.I.R. was lodged by Jagjeet Singh at Police Station Devband on 26.4.2003 at 8:30 P:M. After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused/revisionists u/s 302 IPC and u/s 3(2)(5) of the Act. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial court, learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Haridwar framed the charge against the accused/revisionists as above. Against the said order 3 dated 5.5.2007, the revisionists have come up in revision before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that he does not wants to challenge the charge u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC against the revisionists but the charge u/s 3(2)(5) of the Act framed against the revisionists is not as per the spirit of the law. He further submitted that the crime was not committed by the revisionists due to the reason that Avtar Singh was a person of Scheduled Caste but the said crime was committed with the motive of removing Avtar Singh from the service. Hence, he submitted that the charge u/s 3(2)(5) of the Act is not made out against the revisionists. I do not find substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionists, as there is specific allegation made against the revisionists in the F.I.R. that they have used the words **l ky s pekj pVVs**. This is one of the reasons that the injuries were caused to Avtar Singh along with another reason to remove him from service. 6. It is a settled legal position that if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed 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. At the time of framing of the 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. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. 4 From the above said discussion and from the evidence available on record, at this stage there is ample evidence to frame the charge against the accused/revisionists u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and u/s 3(2)(5) of the Act. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the order dated 5.5.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., is correct & justified and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the said order. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.12.2008 RG