ROMESH SHARMAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I propose to dispose of Criminal Revision Petition No. 380 of 1999 and Criminal Revision petition No. 400 of 1999. Both these revision petitions are directed against the order dated 25.9.1999 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in case arising out of FIR No. 188/94 under Sections 302/506, 144/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Mehrauli. In this case, Romesh Sharma and six others have been charged for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Panel Code while Romesh Sharma, Sant Ram and Hem Chand have charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners herein have challenged the order framing charge on the ground, inter alia, that the material on record, it taken to be correct, does not make out a triable case inasmuch as no conviction can be based thereon. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 25.9.2000, while dealing with the case, was pleased to hold that all the lads and circumstances taken together point out grave suspicion about the involvement of the accused, persons in the conspiracy to kill Kunjum. The FIR No. 188/99, dated 20.3.1999, Police Station Mehrauli is based on the statement of Ram Achal Tiwari, who stales as follows:-

(2.) While investigating the information, Surendra Mishra, Tajender Virdi (a) Dolly, Jaspreet Virdi @ Sonu and Romesh Sharma were also arrested on the allegation of having conspired to gel Kunjum murdered with the help of hired assassins of whom Rakesh, Ganga Singh, Devinder and Sudesh could not be arrested. The investigating agency has placed reliance on as many as 40 witnesses hut, according to the prosecution, has brought out their case to implicate all the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has analysed the material on record and individually dealt with the same in his order under challenge to show that on the material available charge can be framed against the petitioners.

(3.) What has been argued before me by learned'counsel is that wherever a circumstance can give rise to an explanation, that circumstances is not sufficient to bring home a guilt in a case of circumstantial evidence. A great deal of learning has gone into this matter where judgement after judgments have been cited to this effect that conviction cannot be based in a case of circumstantial evidence where a plausible alternative explanation is possible and, therefore, if the material on record in this case is taken, as a whole, and taken to be proved, is not sufficient to sustain conviction and the charges frame ought to be quashed. On the other hand, there is sufficient precedents to show that at the stage of framing of charge reasonable ground for believing that conviction is possible is sufficient. Even prima facie case need not be proved. There is indeed material on record which satisfies this requirement. It would, therefore, not be appropriate at this stage to stifle the trial on the basis of what ultimately may be the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The value to be attached to the evidence, its nature and quality will depend upon how the prosecution unfolds its case before the Court. I do not propose to go into the individual circumstance which has been adequately gone into by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, list any observation on the merits may cause prejudice to the case. Suffice it to say, that the circumstances taken as a whole do make out at this stage sufficient ground to put the accused to trial. I am of the view that there is no need to go into the elaborate reasoning, as I have already stated, which will only burden the record.