Khelna @ Jabar Singh vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This revision petition has been preferred u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order of framing of charge under Sections 306, 323 and 506 Part II of IPC vide order dated 30.5.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, Distt. Morena, in S.T. No. 56/2013. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Mewaram has lodged a report at police Station, Nagra, Distt. Morena, that on 6.10.2012 at about 5 p.m. applicant Khelna@Jabar Singh, who was in a drunken state, armed with Danda abused Balveer. Balveer objected, on this, applicant started beating him by means of Danda and fists, as a result of which, Balveer received some injuries. On hearing the scream of Balveer, complainant, Vishwanath, Smt. Savitri and Nema rushed to the spot and intervened in the matter. Then applicant started running towards his house by threatening Balveer to kill. Balveer also chased him, but he could not caught hold of him and applicant went inside of his house. Thereafter, feeling insulted by the beating given by applicant Khelana, Balveer jumped into the well. He was taken out from the well in an unconscious state. On this report, Crime No. 91/2012 has been registered at police Station, Nagra, Distt. Morena for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC and Balveer was sent for treatment to JA Hospital, Gwalior, where on 22.10.2012 he died. Thereafter, Section 306 of IPC has been added.

After due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner in the Court of JMFC, Ambah, from where the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned ASJ, Ambah, framed the charges vide order dated 30.5.13 against the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order framing charges is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. Learned ASJ has not applied judicial mind while framing the charges. There is no evidence of any abetment given by the petitioner. The petitioner has not abetted the deceased for committing suicide. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has supported the impugned order and submitted that from the case diary statements of the witnesses and evidence collected during investigation, prima facie charges under Sections 306, 323 and 506 Part II of IPC have rightly been framed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the revision.

In order to appreciate the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.

FIR lodged by Mewaram reveals that the petitioner was having a Danda and he was abusing deceased Balbir. When Balbir objected, petitioner gave Danda and fist blows causing injuries to Balbir. On hearing the scream of Balbir, Mewaram, Vishwanath, Smt. Savitri and Nema rushed to the spot and then petitioner started running towards his house and Balbir chased him, but he could not catch hold of him and petitioner entered in his house. Thereafter, due to beating given by the petitioner by means of Danda, the deceased felt insulted and on account of it, jumped into the well. In case diary statements, Mewaram, Vishwanath, Smt. Savitri and Ku. Nema have supported the facts mentioned in the FIR.

At the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed.

In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, the Apex Court considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed. If in the light of the aforesaid legal position we examine the instant case, it appears that the ingredients of abetment as defined u/s 107 of IPC are present in the case, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that prima facie, it cannot be said that as a result of abetment given by the petitioner the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well has no substance. In my considered opinion, prima facie charge u/s 306 of IPC is made out and the learned trial court has not committed any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in framing the charges as aforesaid against the petitioner. The revision petition is devoid of any merits and is therefore dismissed.