KUNJ BEHARI ALIASKUNJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. is against the order of Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 21st Oct. , '87 by which, he ordered framing of charge against the petitioners u/s. 302 read with S. 120-B, IPC.

(2.) THE police submitted a challan against 6 persons u/ss. 302 & 120-B, IPC. THE trial court, after hearing both the sides, at the time of framing charge, passed the impugned order by which, it framed charge against all the accused persons u/s. 302/120-B, IPC.

(3.) IN the present case, the stage was of framing charge. I have gone through the above judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which is a very small judgment, and therein, it has been observed: "both the trial and the High Court have generally given a brief survey of the evidence sought to be adduced against the appellants. It is true that the High Court has not gone into the details or the pros and cons of the matter. This was obviously because that is not the stage when the court could enter into meticulous consideration of the evidence and materials. The High Court has clearly observed that after perusing the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s. 161, it was unable to find that charges could be said to be ground-less. " IN view of the above principle, their Lordships in that case have observed that regarding meticulous consideration, the High Court need not worry about it, but certainly, the statements recorded u/s. 161, Cr. P. C. should be looked into; and if from those statements, the High Court comes to the conclusion that it is not sufficient evidence to frame charge, then, certainly it can interfere in the order of framing charge. The above ruling, however, does not say that this Court is not empowered to enter into the correctness of the statements recorded u/s. 161, Cr. P. C. or that in no circumstance, the High Court should interfere in the orders of framing charge.