GURMEET SINGH BAGGA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case raises two interesting legal issues firstly, at the time of framing charge, whether the trial Court should consider the evidence in favour of the accused, contained in the record of the case or not? Secondly, what criteria should be applied for while framing the charge?

(2.) THESE issues arise in the following factual background: In April, 1999, one Prabhu Dayal filed a criminal complaint before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur wherein he alleged that he is engaged in construction activities. According to him, in 1997, he had constructed petitioner's house, for which the petitioner owed him an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- On 21-2-1999, he, along with Kalu Ram Gurjar and Pappu Lal Saini, went to the petitioner's house for asking for the payment of the amount due. When he asked the petitioner to pay,the amount, allegedly the petitioner started assaulting him and also used foul language with regard to his caste status. The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr. P. C. to the Police Station, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. The Police registered a formal FIR, FIR No. 6-4/1999, for offences under Sections 323, 341, 504, IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('the SC/ST Act' for short). Since an offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act was involved, the investigation was conducted by a Dy. S. P, After conducting a thorough investigation, the police concluded that no such incident had taken place as claimed by the complainant. Therefore, it filed a negative final report. The. complainant, in turn, filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses. Subsequently, notwithstanding the negative final report, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 504, IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Court of Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur. Vide order dated 8-7-2004, while the learned trial Judge discharged the petitioner from the offence under Section 341 IPC, he framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504, IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) FIFTHLY, that before the Judge can frame a charge against the accused he should sift through the evidence, contained in record of the case, and form an opinion that there is reasonable likelihood of conviction. However, in the present case sufficient number of witnesses have claimed that no such incident, ever took place, as alleged by the complainant. Thus, there is hardly any possibility of the petitioner's conviction by a Court of law.