KRISHNA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the framing of charges under Sections 302, 212, 120-B of the IPC, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition praying therein for quashing of the same.

(2.) The case emanates from the FIR lodged by Balwant Singh on the allegations that he was travelling in Bolero Camper bearing No.HP-06C-0750 (for short 'Jeep') being driven by Raghubir Singh to see a cultural programme during 'Lavi' fair. After programme had finished, Shri Ajay Kumar, son of Shri Rajender Thakur (now deceased) met them at Rampur and accompanied them on their way back to Nogli (Khakhrola). Accused Vijay Kumar happened to meet them and he sought help from the occupants of the Jeep on the pretext that his vehicle bearing No.HP-06A-2195 had skidded and was stuck in the road. Ajay Kumar deceased alighted from the vehicle to help the accused Vijay Kumar, whereas, Balwant Singh and Raghubir Singh went home in the Jeep. When Ajay Kumar did not return back for quite some time, efforts were made to contact him on his phone, however, he did not attend the call. When searched by complainant Balwant Singh and Raghubir Singh, they had found him lying in a pool of blood on the road at that very place where he had been dropped. Police was informed and on the statement of Balwant Singh recorded under Sec. 154 Crimial P.C. FIR was registered under Sec. 302 of the Penal Code as the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused Vijay Kumar. Before going into the relative merits of the case, the contours and parameters for quashing of charges will have to be delineated.

(3.) In State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018 , it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that at the time of framing of charges, evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce is not to be meticulously judged nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not even obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. At the time of framing of charges, the Court is not to see whether there are sufficient grounds for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion, at this stage, which may lead the Court to think that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is apt to reproduce the relevant observations which read thus:-