Back
1992 Supreme(Del) 343
High Court Of Delhi
BHIM SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 42 of 1990
Decided On : 07/06/1992
B.D.BATRA, D.R.Sethi
The court held that at the stage of framing charges, the judge must carefully evaluate the available material and evidence to determine whether a prima facie case exists against the accused. If the evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie case, the accused should be discharged.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 397/401 - REVISION PETITION - CHARGE FRAMING - ARMS ACT - SECTION 27 - INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTION 307 - CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO MURDER - GUNSHOT INJURIES - CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY (CFSL) REPORT - JUDICIAL SCRUTINY - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Bhim Singh, was charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly causing gunshot injuries to Dharam Pal. The Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge based on the prosecution's case that the petitioner used a 12-bore double-barrel gun to inflict the injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the CFSL report, which was made available after the framing of the charge, significantly undermined the prosecution's case. The report stated that the gun in question was not in working order and that no gunshot/pallet holes were found on the victim's clothing. The court held that this evidence cast serious doubt on the prosecution's version of events and that the petitioner could not be prima facie connected with the crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the CFSL report could be considered at the stage of framing charges. 2. Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the CFSL report could be considered at the stage of framing charges, as it was a crucial piece of evidence that had the potential to significantly impact the outcome of the trial. 2. The court held that the evidence on record, including the CFSL report, was insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. The court noted that the gun in question was not in working order and that no gunshot/pallet holes were found on the victim's clothing. The court concluded that there was no basis for entertaining any doubt regarding the truthfulness of the CFSL report and that it nullified the entire prosecution version.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge framing the charge under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The court held that the order was manifestly erroneous and unsustainable in law.
( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed a revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 21. 12. 1989 of Shri P. K. Dham, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. directing the framing of charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
( 2 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the following charge:
"that on 12. 7. 88 at 10. 20 P. M. near village Alipur, Delhi, caused such bodily injury with gun shot to Dharam Pal with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if by that act death of Dharam Pal was caused you will be guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly on the aforesaid day, time and place you were found in possession of a 12 bore double barrel gun which you used for unlawful purpose i. e. causing injuries to Dharam Pal and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act and within the cognizance of this Court. "
( 3 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erroneously framed charge under Section 307 of the lndian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, as it is contrary to the available material and documents of the case. The principal submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri D. R. Sethi has been that the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory completely demolishes the case of the prosecution and in view of the report of the CFSL, no charge under Section 307 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act can be framed. The report of the CFSL is dated 29. 12. 89. Since the entire controversy in this case revolves the CFSL Report, therefore, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the relevant portion of the CFSL Report. The results of, the examination are set out as under: The Result of Examination
(I) The 12-bore DBBL Gun (Marked W/l) of Parcel No. 7 is not in working order in its present condition and products of combastion of cartridge powder could not be detected in the barrels of this gun (marked W/l) in question. (ii) The 12-bore cartridge case (marked C/1) of parcel No. 6 could not be linked with the 12-bore DBBL Gun (Marked W/l) m question for want of sufficient characteristic marks on the fired case (marked C/l) and in the absence of proper tests from the gun (marked W/l ). This cartridge case (marked C/l) is of the same make as that of the five 12-Bore cartridges (marked C/2 to C/6) of parcel No. 7. (iii) The five 12-bore cartridges (marked C/2 to C/6) of parcel No. 7 are live cartridges. (iv) No gun shot /pallet hole could be found on the kurta and pajama of parcel No. 1. There are two significant features of the report. One is that the 12- hore DBBL gun which was seized from the accused was not in a working condition and product of combastion of cartridge powder could not be detected in the barrels of this gun. Another main feature of the C. F. S. L. Report is that no gun shot or pallet holes were found in kurta and pajama of the injured.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to Shri D. R. Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the CFSL Report totally demolishes the case of the prosecution and by no stretch of imagination the petitioner could have inflicted gun shot/pallet injuries to Dharam Pal as alleged by the prosecution, therefore, gun shot pallet injuries could not have been caused by the gun in question. Shri Sethi further submitted that no pallets were recovered. This fact also runs counter to the prosecution version.
( 5 ) SHRI Sethi expressed his apprehensions, that admitted past enmity of the petitioner with the accused may have been the main cause of his false Plication in the instant case. The injured in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had admitted that he had litigation and enmity with the petitioner Bhim Singh. He has re
