ROSHNI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition field u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. has been directed against the order dated 17. 12. 91 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu, whereby he framed charges for the offences u/ss. 147, 452, 302 r/w 149 IPC against the petitioners.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts giving rise to this petition are that on a written report dated 27. 3. 89 submitted by the complainant Omprakash , a case was registered at police station, Sujangarh against eleven persons including the petitioners for the offences u/ss. 147, 148, 452, 302/149 IPC. However after investigation, the police submitted the challan against nine accused persons only. It was stated that as regards the petitioners, no offence was made out against them. Accordingly, they were not challenged. The learned MJM, Sujangarh committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Churu. On 21. 8. 89, an application was filed by the complainant under sec. 190 (3) Cr. P. C. to the effect that the names of the petitioners find mention in the FIR; that the conten of the FIR have been duly corroborated by the complainant Omprakash and injured Smt. Rekha Devi in their police statements dt. 27. 3. 89, which were recorded immediately after the occurrence and that in those statements, they have clearly stated that petitioners Smt. Roshni and Mehboobdi also accompanied the other accused persons and participated in the incident but the Investigating Officer without any rhyme or reason, did not file challan against them and, therefore, cognizance be also taken against the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 26. 9. 89 took cognizane against the petitioners for the said offences and issued bailable warrants to ensure their presence. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed S. B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 452/89 u/s. 482 Cr. P. C in this court which was later on not pressed by them. Therefore, this court by its order dt. 4. 2. 91 dismissed the said misc. petition as not pressed observing that it would be open for the petitioners to raise all the objections before the trial court at the time of framing charge. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge after hearing the parties and perusing the challan papers by his impugned order dt. 17. 12. 91 ordered for framing charge against them for the offences u/ss. 147, 452, 302 r/w 149 IPC and in pursuance thereof, a charge was framed on 8. 1. 92. Hence this petition.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to these rival submissions. In Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others (3), the Apex Court has held that at the stage of framing charge, the prosecution evidence does not commence and the magistrate/sessions Judge has therefore, to consider the question as to framing of charge on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the I. O. It has further been held that standard test, proof and judgment, which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly the same which is to be applied at the stage of charging the accused or framing charge against him. The Apex Court has further held that at this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials placed before the court which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.