P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Bindu and Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi - (High Court of Delhi) (01 Jul 2019)

Charge would be framed not on mere suspicion but on facts giving rise to grave suspicion of accused having committed offence

MANU/DE/2039/2019

Criminal

Petitioners impugn order whereby the Revisional Court has reversed the order on charge passed by the Trial Court in case FIR under Sections 323, 341, 354, 509, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). By order, the Trial Court had discharged the Petitioners of all offences. By the impugned order, the Revisional Court set aside the order of the Trial Court discharging the Petitioners and directed framing of a charge under Section 323/34 against the Petitioners and under Sections 509 and 354 against the Petitioner No. 2.

The Revisional Court was of the view that the Trial Court could not go into the probity of the evidence or the testimonies. The Revisional Court relied on the statement given under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and was of the view that, there was prima facie sufficient evidence to frame charge against the Petitioners under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 509 and Section 354 of IPC against Petitioner No. 1.

The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, has held that, at the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court has the power to shift and weigh evidence though for a limited purpose and finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.

Charge would be framed not on mere suspicion but on the facts giving rise to grave suspicion of the accused having committed the offence. In the present case the independent eye witness does give his version of the incident, which, contradicts the version of the complainant. Not supporting the version of the complainant is distinct and different from contradicting the version of the complainant. If an independent eye witness claims not to have witnessed the incident and does not state anything about the incident and does not support the version of the complainant, his statement can be disregarded. However, where an independent eye witness admits to being a witness and makes a statement about the incident but contradicts the version of the complainant, credence would have to be given to his version, more so, when the complainant herself has stated that the said eye witness was present throughout the incident.

The Trial Court had rightly held that, there are clear contradictions in the statement of the complainant. The facts do not give rise to grave suspicion against the accused for framing of a charge against them under Sections 354, 509, 506, 323, 341 and 34 of IPC. There is no medical or other evidence to substantiate the allegations leveled by the complainant.

The Revisional Court has clearly committed an error in interfering with the well reasoned order of the Trial Court holding that, no prima facie case giving rise to grave suspicion was made out against the petitioners. The impugned order of the Revisional Court reversing the order on charge is not sustainable. The same is accordingly set aside. Revision petition is allowed.

Relevant : Union of India v. Prafulla. Kumar Samal, MANU/SC/0414/1978

Tags : CHARGE   FRAMING OF   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved