H K L BHAGAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this criminal revision application under Section 397(1) read with Sections 401 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") the petitioner prays for the revision/setting aside of the order framing charge under Section 228 of the Code against the petitioner-accused for Sections 148/188/302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and also quashing of the proceedings.

(2.) It is mainly submitted by Mr. D.D. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the statement of 15.1.1996 of witness Satnami Bai before the Court as prosecution witness alleging that the petitioner had abetted the commission of looting, arson, murders, etc. is a cryptic statement and there is no evidence, direct or indirect, before the Court with regard to the presence of the petitioner in the area of incident; that the statement of said witness is not admissible except for the purpose of summoning of the accused u/Sec. 319 of the Code; that under Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 319 of the Code, the proceedings have to start afresh and that there is no legal and admissibile evidence; that the petitioner did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness before framing of charge; that even if the statement is accepted for the present purpose, the same is not sufficient and does not disclose the prima-facie grounds to proceed against the accused as required under the law; that in none of the six other statements / affidavits recorded prior to the statement on 15.1.1996 before the Court, the petitioner is involved and there is no explanation as to why the petitioner is not named in any of previous statements/affidavits; that FIR and the statements u/Sec. 161 of the Code have its own importance and that the documents filed by the accused are required to be considered for the purpose of discharge u/Sec. 227 of the Code; that no conviction could be recorded after eleven years and therefore no legal grounds to proceed against the accused. As against this, it is submitted by Mr. K.K. Sud, learned Counsel for the respondent that these cases form class by themselves; that despite instances of looting, arson and filing of the FIRs at the relevant time, there was no investigation; that the psycic condition of the affected be considered. That the people were let loose with weapons, material etc. who committed looting, arson, murders etc. and what action was taken by the Administration at the relevant time? That the report of the Commission is no evidence; that the readymade affidavits were got signed and not a substantive piece of evidence; that the affidavits filed before the Commission and the Committee can not be seen at this stage; that the same can be used at the most for the purpose of contradiction at the trial; that the affected areas are the Jhuggis and the class of people are the migrants and considering the mental standard, peculiar facts and circumstances, delay would be no bar; that the statements recorded u/Sec. 161 of the Code do not suggest eliciting of the information relating to the incident; that the door of the witness can not be closed; that this is not a case of ordinary nature; that the statement u/Sec. 161 of the Code is not an end of everything.

(3.) It is the settled position of law that at the stage of framing of charge u/Sec. 228 of the Code, the Court has not to meticulously evaluate the evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be finally applied before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Secs. 227 and 228 of the Code. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials leading the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges. What is relevant at this stage is only the sufficiency of the grounds for proceeding against the accused and not whether the materials on record are sufficient for conviction or not. The purpose of Section 228 is to ensure that the Court should be satisfied that the accusation made against the accused is not frivolous and there is some material for proceeding against him.