/L''-,.:°> ;y "r^~ HI6H C<X»RT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Petit'eners (Appiiccnts) Respo"dent Cr.M.P.No.223 of 20uo 1. Kyachand Nag, S/o Sukhdeo Nkia, Aged about 46 yedrs. 2. Shiy Kumof Nag, S/o KyaschfRd Nag, Aged about 21 years. 3. Purushottam Nag, S/o Kyachand Nag, Aged about 24 years. (.411 R/o Chakkspnro, Barasur-, Tahsil & Disrt. bantewada (C.6.) Ve-rsus . State of Chhattisaai+i - Through P.S. Barasur, bistt.bantewada (C.6.; (PETtTTON UNbEft SECTION 482 OF THE CO&E OF CRIMJNAL PROCEDURE) (SB: Hon'bleM-. T.P. Shormo. J.) Shr-i P.R.Pcrtankar, counse! for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Owivedi, by.Sovt.Advooate for- responcfent/State. ORAL ORDER yssssd cn 2Qth Ap"!. 200°) The petitioners have fited •riiis petition for qunshment of the order dctsd 4.10.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, bantawada in Sessions Tria! No.201/2007 whersby the lenmed Sessions -Judge has fromed the diafge under- Sections 452 A 307/34 of the Indinn Penal Code ogninst the petitjoners. 2. The order is chaltenaed on the ground that ths petitioners hnve not committed any offence punishable under Sections 452 & 307/34 of the Indian Penal. The prosecution has not collected cny mnterial to show primoi facie in+ention/motiye for commission of offence which is most es»"tiai ingr'edients of the co.se. thersfore, charge such framsd is not susta'nable under +he law. -2- 3 . On the other hand, ordef impugned is ajpported on behalf of the respondent/State and subm'ts that the Court beiow has ri9htly framed the charge on the basis of charge sheet and "i.o.teria! collected on behalf of the prosecution. The Court below has not comrnitt'ed cny (l!ega!ity in fmming the chnrge. 4. Thte Court In ths case of Hcrssh & Ors. v. Stats ef Chhsttis^h observsd thus; "7.This is a crimina) revisior! cgainst •!+te order framing charge. It is weli settted that at the stage of framing of charge the Couri- is required to evaiuate the materiui and documents on record with a view to findin9 out if the facts emerainq therefrom taken at •Hieir face value disclose the existence of aii the ingredients constituting the alieged offence. TTie Court may foc this iimited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at -tne initia! stage to accept a!I that the proaecution states as gosyel truth even if i+ is opposed to common sense or the broad Drobabiiities of the case. 8. As has been held by the Apex Court- in ths case of State of M.P. v. S.BJohari, 2000 (2) SCC 57 : (2000 CriLJ 944), at the stag®of framing of diarge ths Court 's required to see the facts emerging from materiais coiiected by the pr'osecution whether Sudi muteriul constitue the offence with which the aceused could be charged, but the Court is not required to marshal it with a view to decide the reiiability thereof. 9. At the stage of framing of charge no met'cutous scrutiny is required, only a strong suqsicion of the commission of offence is sufficient for framing of dnargs. In the case of Onkar (2008 Cri LJ 1391) (supra) it has been held by the Apex Court in para 111+ius: "it is true that at the stcge of framing of chcrge +he Court is reauired to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to findina out if the facts emergjng therefron', takesn fflt their face va!ue. disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constitutin9 the alleged offence. At that stage, the Court is not expected to go d"ep into the pr-obative vaiue of the material on record. What needs to be considered js whether- there 'is a ground fof presuming 12009 Cri LJ 1383 that the offence has been committed cnd not a ground tor convictina the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion froundec! on materiai wAtich leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual inoredients constitutino The offence alieged would justify the framing of charge against tiie nccused in respect of the commissior) of that offence." 5. In the instant cnse, accord'ing to F.I.ft., al! petitioners armed wi'rt) rod, 6upti <md stick came i" front of the house of iQJured Sukhodei'i, they en-tered into the house of Sukhodevi for- kilt'ng her, they dragged her from the house cnd caused several injuries includ'rso fracture. F.I-R. itself shows Ihat the petitioners ho.ye entered into the house of the injuried Sukhodevi w;th intent to commit mur-der of injured SuRhodev' cnd has attempted to commit "lur'der' punishable under Section 307 of the I/idian Per'o! Code; wh*ch is '3unishab!es with imorisoni'w'rit for !ife. Cri?ntnoJ hosue' tress pass after prepar'ation for commisslo" of offence punishable wi'rii impr'isonnient for life js punishable under- Sectio" 450 of 1+ie Indiofl Ps"aj Code. The matecic! collected on be.half of •rfie Drosecution sh.ows Drima fc*ci®ccssa for th<s offence punishctbie' u?id®r5t@ctio!fi 4BO olf th% ZnciioH Pena! Code aid Sec+ion 307 read with Section 34 of -Hie Indian Pencl Code, but the Court below was frarned the chor9e for the offence punishable under Section 452 &, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Cade. 6. This is a petition under Sectio" 482 nf the Code of Crimina! Pyocedur'e for invokina extraordinary inherent !ur''sdictio". The Couri" below has not commif'ed cny illegnli+y i^'sulting into grcye miscarriage of lustice. 7. Consequently, th.e p< dismissed cmd it is hereby dism'ssed ion being de of r^e:?»tt is linbl^ fo h^? 8. Instead of framing of chorge for the offence Section 450 of the Indian Pena! Code, the Court below chorge for -the offenc< punidiable under Section 452 of the Indian Pena! Code. Therefore, the Court below is d'rected to hear the partics afresh ^- iriate charae for cr'iffiina! house tress oass after prepcrotion to commit offence punishable with imprison'">ent for !ife. A copy of this or-der be se"t to the Sessions Judge, bakshin Bas'tar, t>antewada by fax as we!l ns by usua! mode. 9. In view of nboye, I.A.No.01/2008 stands d'sposed "f. .,'- Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge