SHIVLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two revision petitions. Both the revision petitions are against the same order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar dated 3. 11. 2000 by which he framed charges against the petitioners.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

(3.) NO doubt, in view of recent judgment of the Supreme Court in State by Central Bureau of Investigation vs. S. Bangarappa (1), it is not necessary that the reasons should not be given for framing of charge but charge has to be framed as per provisions of Section 228 Cr. P. C. Of course, Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also to be kept in mind. Section 227 Cr. P. C. provides that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing but he will frame the charge after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid if he is of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence as per provisions of Section 228 Cr. P. C. It means that there should be prima facie evidence against an accused. Of course, a charge can be framed on the basis of strong suspicion but there should be evidence to that effect. The last paragraph of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge states that there was evidence against the petitioners since they were present on the place of occurrence and that they had injured the deceased Chhotelal who has according to the post mortem suffered a lot of injuries. Admittedly, there is no test identification parade of any of these two accused persons. So far as petitioners are concerned, nobody saw them inflicting any injury to the deceased Chhotelal. Then there is no evidence that any test identification parade was conducted in which they could have been identified. The first information report mentions that the person wearing blue T-shirt and other 5-6 persons were giving beatings to the deceased by lathies. It was the person wearing blue T-shirt who was caught and handed over to the police. He is Mani Ram. Bala Prasad and Shivlal are the persons against whom no grave suspicion arises as they were not identified nor anybody named them. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. (2) has held that in exercising his jurisdiction u/sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before him as well as the basic infirmities appearing in the case but this does not mean that he should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence. In State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. (3), the Supreme Court had held that for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the court possesses comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. I find from the evidence on record that there is no such evidence which may connect the accused petitioners with the crime.