STATE OF M.P. Vs. SIDDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the State against the order dated 11.2.1991 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T.No. 30/91, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to frame the charge under S. 307 IPC and transferred the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in accordance with S. 228 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that instead charge under S. 324 IPC should be framed. The trial was directed accordingly.

(2.) THE State is aggrieved by this order. It is contended on its behalf that there is sufficient material to frame the charge under S. 307 IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has, thus, erred in law in declining to frame the charge under S. 307 IPC. The learned counsel for the Non -applicants (accused) on the other hand, supports the order and contends that there is no material to frame the charge under S. 307 IPC and instead the direction about S. 324 IPC is correctly given.

(3.) IT is, therefore, clear that discharge is permissible only when the Judge' considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and this consideration is to rest on the record and the documents submitted therewith. On the other hand, the charge is to be framed if in the opinion of the judge there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. At this stage of framing of charge meticulous examination of the material is neither necessary nor warranted. It cannot be disputed and in fact not disputed that the injury itself, is not the sole criteria for such presumption. In AIR 1983 SC 305 (State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and others) it is held as under : -