:\ ^-"> •r Cr.^.P.(PR^o.g138of2010^R ^ P 2-OL/ j^ CJ // .Applicants 1. Rlchiram S;o Kuwar Slngh,, about 35 years, Caste : Sstnaml, R/o Domanpur, Pollce Statlon Jarhagaon Dlstrict Bllaspur (C.G.) Respondent 2. Janakram, S?o Xuwar Singh, aged about 50 years, Caste : Satnami, R/o Viliage Khaml Kurmi, Poilce Statlon •Jarhagaon, District Bliaspur (C.'G.) 3. Jalkumar S/o Ramdas agsd about 36 years, Caste : Satnami. PJo Vlilage Tengangarh, Pollce Station Pathriya, Dsstrict BIJaspur (C.G.) Versus Stats of Chhattlsgarh Through Station House Officer PG!IC€ Station PaShriya, District Bliaspur (C.G.) (Petitlor, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'ble Nr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Mr.C.K.Kesharwanl, counsei forttis petltionQrs. Vtr.Qamrui AZJZ, Panel Lav,'yer for the respondent/State. ORD&R- (Passed on 28 l,terch, 2611) 1.- By this pstition under Section 482 of ths Cr.P.C., the p®tttion@rshav® chalJenged iegallty and propriety ofthe orcior 1.8.2010 by the Second Adclltlona! Sesslons Judge (F.T.C.), IvlungeSi In Sessions TriaS No.55/2009, whereby the Second Addltlonaj Sessions Judge has framed the charge ofSectlons 302/149, 302/149, 323/149, 323M49 and 120-B of the I.P.C. against the prosent petitioners and other accused persons. 2. Reglstry has pointed out ,the default that ths petltloners have not fJSsd copy of charge sheet. 3... Learned counseS for th©petltioners ©ubmitsthat the petitloners hav©t'lSQd copy of charge shoot same may be taken on record. 4. Copy of charge sheet is on record, 5.. Learned counsel for the petltloners submlts that as p©rstaterr.ent of Namudas, prssent appiicants us©dto come to vjilage ©ndprovoke th© •r *" other accused persons and on the date of Incldent they havs provoked and on the basss of such provocation other persons have commltted th© aforesald offence but same Is not sufficient for framsng of charge against the present petitioners who have not caused any Injury or not jnvolved in commlsslon of ofTonce punlshable under Sections 302/149, 302/148, 323/149, 323M49 and 120-B ofthe I.P.C. 6. On the other hand, iearned counsel for the Stat©opposes ths petitlon. 7, Thls Is petitlon under Sactlon 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashmont of charge. In ordor to attract the provlsions of Sectlon 482 of the Cr.P,C., tho prosecutlon Is required to show prima fade matsrial agalnst the accused sufflclent for commlssion of ofrence and no metjculous scrutlny of the evldence is required at this stage. 8. As has been heid by the Suprsme Court in ths case of State ot' Blhar v. Ramesh Singh strong suspieion agalnst the accused that he has commltted the offence wouid be sufftclent for framlng of chargo,. The Suprsme Court has further held that "...... at ths beginnlng and the initjal stage ofthe triaj th@ truth, veradty and effsct of the ©vldencewhlch the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be metlculousJy judged. Nor Is any welght to be attached to the probabie dofence of the accusod. It is not obiigatory for the Judge at that stage of the tria! to consider in any detali and wesgh in a sensltive baiancs whether the facts, If proved, wouid be IncompatibSe wlth the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of t©stand judgment whlch is to be finaliy applied before recording a fsnding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactiy to b^ applJed at the of dedding the matter under S. 227 or S. 228 ofthe Code. At that stage the Court Is not to see whether there Is suffsclent ground for convlctlon of the accused or whether the triai is sure to end in hte convlctscn. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of susplcion, cannot take the p!sce of proof of his guilt at the condusion of the trial. But at the initial stsge sf there ss a strong suspblon whlch Seads tho Court to Shlnk that there is ground for presuming that the accused hsss committed an offence then st is not open to the Court to say that there ss no sufflclent ground for proceedlng against the accussd." 9. Further, in the matter .of Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legai Affairs, West Benga! v. Anij Kumar Bhunja and others2 She S'ypreme Court ;Ai'R1y77yu20'!S iiAJR1980SC52 ,^s \J^^ ^~^^y^^ -.<f -3- has hsid that ths Court Is rsqutred to s©eprima facje materiai on recprd capabte of infemng strong suspidon about commsssion of offencs. Para 18 ofthe ssid judgment reads thus "At the stage of framing charges, ths prosecutlon evidence does not commence. The Maglstrate has therefore, to consider th@ question as to framing of charge on a generai conslderaSion of the materiats placed before him by the Investigating Police OtTtcer. The standard test, proof and judgment whlch is to be appljed fmaSly before finding the accused guilty or other^sse Is not exactiy to be appSied at the stage of 8. 227 cr 228. At thb stage, even a very strcng su^pldon founded upon materiais before the Maglstrate, which Seads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the exlstence of the factual ingredsents constjtytlng the offence alieged, may jusiify the framing of charges agalnst the accused In respect of the commission of that offcnce." lO.Whlte deaiing wlth the same questlon In ths case of Nlranjan Ssngh Karam Slngh Punjabi, Advocate; v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bljja and others3 the Supreme Court has held in para 7 of its judgment that "It sesms wsi! settied that at the Ss. 227-228 stage s.e., stage of framing She charge, the Court Is required SG ovaiuate the matoria! and documonts on record with a view to finding out if the facts emsrging therefrom taken at their face vaJue dlsdose the exlstence of a!J the ingredsonts conststuting the ailQged offenco. The Courl may for this Eimitsd purpose sift th6 evidence as it cannot bo expected ovon at that snltiat stage to accept aS§ that the prosecution states as gospe! truth even If it is opposed to common sense or thebroad probabiiittes ofthecase." 11.in the matter of State of gVlaharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and others the Supreme Court has heid that "At the stage of framing of the charge ths Court has to consider the materiai with a view to flnd out if there ss ground for presuming that the accused has committeci tho offence or that there is not sufficiont ground for proceedlng against h§m and not for the purpose of arrsving at the condusion that it is not iikeiy to Sead to a conviction." 12. The Court beiow has considereGi the F.S.R. and statements of the witnessss, espedaiiy statement of Namudas who has iodged ths F.1. R. 'L 3AiR 1990 SC 1962 4AiR1997 SC 2041 •^\ ^- •^-s^^\, ^" .,^^^ '% //'^ •\ 1 ->>, "t:;'/-?' 1 ^...// -4— which is sufficsent for framing of eharge of the aforesald offsnce wlth the help ofSsction 120-B ofthe S.P.C. 13.0n due consideration of chargs sheet and statements ofthe wltnesses, i do not find any scopo for intorferonce sn exercise of Inherent jurlsdlctlon in terms of Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. 14.Consequently, the petitlon is {lable to be dlsmjsssd and it Is hereby dismlssed. : §^/. T.P.Sharma Judge fl ^- ^