Naresh and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Hon''ble Dharam Veer, J.—This criminal revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code of Criminal Procedure) has been filed by the revisionists to quash the order dated 12.9.2002 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee in ST No. 176/ 2002, State v. Naresh and Ors. whereby learned trial court has ordered to frame the charge against the revisionists u/s 307 and 504 Indian Penal Code.

In brief, the prosecution case is this that on 22.12.2000 at about 10 am, revisionists Dinesh, Naresh, Amit and Monu have come armed with tamanchas and abused Dharmpal Singh and also threatened him for life and with intention to kill Dharmpal Singh and his sons have fired on them. Dharmpal Singh and his sons run away inside the room and in the gallery and saved their life.

From the perusal of the order of the trial court it reveals that the trial court has framed the charge after perusing the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and other documentary evidence on record. It is settled law that charge can be framed if prima facie it indicates that the offence might have committed and the commission of the offence is a probable consequence and the prima facie case is made out against the accused. From the perusal of the order dated 12.9.2002 of the trial court and other evidence available on record, it reveals that prima facie the case against the revisionists u/s 307 and 504 Indian Penal Code is made out and the order of the trial court dated 12.9.2202 for framing the charge u/s 307 and 504 Indian Penal Code is correct and justified and does not require any interference by this Court at this stage.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI, , wherein at para 32 it has been observed as under:

The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at this stage.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 11.10.2002 stands vacated.