IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 69 of 2010 Sri Ateek Ahmad S/o Sri Ajij Ahmad R/o Kandai Road, Pauri, Tehsil Pauri District Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. ...…………. Revisionist Versus 1. Mohd. Anwar S/o Mohd. Abdul Raseed 2. Kamal Safdar S/o Mohd. Anwar 3. Smt. Fatima Begum W/o Mohd. Anwar 4. Smt. Zeenat D/o Mohd. Anwar W/o Sadik 5. Shane Haider S/o Mohd. Anwar All R/o Lakari Parao, P.S. Kotdwara, District Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. 6 . State of Uttarakhand. ...…………. Respondents Mr. U.P.S. Negi, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for respondent No. 6 / State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) This revision is directed against the order dated 26.03.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2010, whereby said court has discharged the respondent No. 1 Mohd. Anwar, respondent No. 2 Kamal Safdar, respondent No. 3 Smt. Fatima Begum and respondent No. 4 Zeenat. The trial court has further directed that charge shall be framed against respondent No. 5 Shane Haider, only in respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. 2 3) Learned counsel for the revisionist (complainant) pleaded that at the stage of charge the evidence cannot be discussed in a hair splitting manner. It is contended that the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error of law by recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) at the stage of framing of charge. It is also argued that the Sessions Judge has made certain observations in the impugned order which may affect the remaining trial against the accused Shane Haider. 4) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant’s daughter Nazia got married to respondent No. 5 Shane Haider on 28.11.2004. Two daughters were born out of the wedlock. However, after sometime their relations soured. It is alleged in the first information report by the complainant that the respondents No. 1 to 5 harassed his daughter for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and attempted to commit her murder. The plea taken by respondents No. 1 to 4 in the case was that they lived separately from the respondent No. 5 Shane Haider (husband), with whom the complainant’s daughter used to live at Kotdwar. It is pleaded by them before the trial court that they live in Bijnor, where the father-in-law (respondent No. 1 Mohd. Anwar) and Zeenat (respondent No. 4) are practicing Advocates. After hearing on charge, learned Sessions Judge discharged the accused, except respondent No. 5 Shane Haider for his trail in respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. 3 5) The trial court has taken note of the fact that respondents No. 1 to 4 did not live in Kotdwar, where the complainant’s daughter and her husband used to live. The trial court has also taken note of the fact that Shane Haider, himself took his wife to the hospital to save her life. 6) I have examined the provision contained in clause (a) of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Said clause empowers the court to examine an accused at any stage of trial without warning, as it think necessary. The power given under clause (a) is a discretionary power of the court, and it is true that invariably it is not exercised. Power to ask the accused to explain circumstance in the evidence against him after close of the prosecution evidence is contained in clause (b) of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. This clause is mandatory in nature. Clause (a) begins with word ‘may’, while clause (b) begins with word ‘shall’, which makes the difference clear between the two. Since, the accused had pleaded at the stage of the charge that they were not residents of Kotdwar where the crime is said to have been committed, the trial court has taken recourse of clause (a) of the Section. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said illegal on the part of the trial court to have put questions to the accused under the aforesaid clause (a). 7) As far as deep examination of the evidence on record is concerned, certainly, the same is not required at the stage of framing of the charge. It is settled principle 4 of law that the trial court is not supposed to discuss the evidence in a hair splitting manner at the stage of framing of the charge. It is equally settled principle of law that if the court finds that prosecution evidence as it exists is taken to be true, can lead the conviction of the accused, it need not to discharge the accused at the stage of trial. No doubt, in the present case the trial court has discussed some evidence at needless length which is normally not done, but merely for that reason the impugned order cannot be said to have suffered from illegality. 8) Learned counsel for the revisionist drew attention of this Court to principle of law laid down in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 568, and it is submitted that the trial court has committed error of law by looking into the material adduced by the accused for discharging them. The law laid down by the Apex court makes it clear that it is not the right of the accused to produce any material at the stage of framing of the charge. But, if some material is produced by the accused only to show that particular material which has already come on the record collected by the Investigating Officer gets corroborated in favour of the accused, it cannot be said that the defence evidence has been taken. In the present case, it has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge that from the papers on record produced by the prosecution itself it was clear that after the complainant’s daughter was taken to hospital and the Medical Officer informed the police station about Medico-legal case, it was mentioned in the General Diary 5 that it was a case of suicide after the quarrel between the husband and the wife. The first information report is said to have been lodged at a subsequent stage. Plea of the respondents was that due to the matrimonial discord between the complainant’s daughter and her husband Shane Haider, other family members residents of other places, were unnecessarily implicated in the crime. 9) In the above circumstances, having considered submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the State, this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be said that learned Sessions Judge has committed any error of law in discharging the accused (except Shane Haider, who is to be tried in respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C.). Therefore, the revision is dismissed with the observation that no observation made by the learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, shall influence the Magistrate in trial of the accused Shane Haider, in respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. (Stay Application No. 314 of 2010 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 04, 2010. H. Negi