VEER SEN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHARGES under Sections 307/34, 302/34, and 504 I.P.C. have been framed against the applicant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ist Baghpat vide order dated 28 -4 -2006.

(2.) IT is against the order of the framing of charges, the applicant has come to this Court under Section 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 under Section 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 under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

(3.) 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 Ramesh Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR SC 1977, 2018, 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.