Veer Sen vs State of U.P. and Another

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—Charges under Sections 307/34, 302/34 and 504, I.P.C. have been framed against the applicant by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Baghpat vide order dated 28.4.2006.

It is against the order of the framing of charges, the applicant has come to this Court u/s 482, Cr. P.C. and his contention is that charge should not be framed against him because he was not named in the first information report or in the first statement of the complainant u/s 161, Cr. P.C. but was named in the statement given the next day and the statements of witnesses and the injured persons who named him were recorded two months after by the Investigating Officer u/s 161, Cr. P.C.

I have heard Sri S. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri R. D. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The mere fact that the name of the applicant does not appear in the first information report and was named the next day will not suffice to provide ground for not framing the charge against him. Similarly, the fact of any delay by the Investigating Officer in recording the statements of the witnesses who have named the applicant will not exonerate him from a charge being framed against him. It has to be noticed that in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, Supreme Court has pronounced that a charge can be framed merely on basis of strong suspicion. It cannot be said that these circumstances are insufficient even to raise a strong suspicion.

It was also argued that there are contradictions in the statements recorded u/s 161, Cr. P.C. The contradictions are not to be examined at the time of framing charge and they have to be seen at the time of trial.

It was also pointed out that there are some factual defects in the framing of the charge. If that is so, the attention of the trial court should have been invited to the same and the trial court, if so required, could amend the charge u/s 216, Cr. P.C.

Petition dismissed.