NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, for the revisionist and Sri V. N. Shukla, A.G.A.

(2.) THESE are two revisions. One is against the order dated 16.8.1988, passed in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1988 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed to frame the charge under Sections 353 and 302, I.P.C. where as Revision No. 1259 of 1988 is against the framing of charge under Sections 353 and 302, I.P.C.

(3.) THE contradictions, if any, in the statements of the witnesses do not entitle the accused for his discharge. THE accused can be discharged only if the trial Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. THE trial Judge cannot meticulously scrutinize the evidence for the purposes of discharging the accused. Section 227, Cr. P.C. empowers the trial court that if he is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the trial Judge is bound to frame the charge. If the evidence is of such nature that in case it goes unrebutted, the conviction is possible, in that situation it is incumbent upon the trial court to frame the charge.