IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2649 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 11, 2008 Hari Ram & Another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioners. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Challenge in this petition is to order dated 21.08.2008 wherein it has been directed that charges be framed for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC. Learned counsel contends that DNA mapping was done which indicates that no offence has been committed. The report is available on the record of the case and yet without there being any discussion on the issue as to whether the offence has been committed or not, impugned order has been passed. The order of directing framing of charge is a non-speaking order and without application of mind and has caused prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. Issue notice of motion. Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on the asking of the Court. Copy of the Crl. Rev. No. M-2649 of 2008 [2] complete paperbook has been supplied to him in Court. Arguments heard. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case emanating from the documents placed on record before the Court. Annexure P-2 is an order dated 25.9.2008 passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-20293 of 2008 titled ‘Hari Ram & Another Vs. State of Punjab’. The petition was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with the contention that there is no physical evidence of commission of rape, in so much as, DNA mapping of the items of evidence was done so as to analyse whether the petitioners had indulged in commission of offence with the prosecutrix. On none of the items of evidence taken from the victim viz. clothes and vaginal swabs/ samples, seminal fluid of sperm cell could be detected. A reference was made to the statement of Suraj Bali Mishra, father of the prosecutrix also, to which reference has been made in the order. Although the matter was considered in the context of the issue involved in that case i.e. for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., however, the material available on record indicates that the Trial Court ought to have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case before framing the charge. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to dispute the fact that the documents made available to the Court with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. have not been considered before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner need to be charge- sheeted. Crl. Rev. No. M-2649 of 2008 [3] Framing of charge and thereafter facing trial is a serious matter for the accused. There is material relating to the issue available on the record which was required to be considered, however, the same has not been considered. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and finding that the order of charge is a non-speaking order without consideration of any material, order dated 21.8.2008 and the charge-sheet of the same date, are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana to consider the matter afresh and take a decision vide a speaking order on the issue only after referring to the material that has been made available alongwith the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petition is allowed in the above terms. The observations made hereinabove are not in the context of merits of the case and have been made only so as to determine the issue that has been brought up in this petition. (AJAI LAMBA) December 11, 2008 JUDGE avin