At the stage of framing of charge, only a prima facie view is to be taken and if the material on record could lead to the conclusion that the commission of the offense is a probable consequence, a case of framing of charge exists.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - The present revision petition U/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned order Dated 09.01.2020 passed by Ms. Neelofer Abida Perveen, Additional Sessions Judge, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide which the Ld. Trial Court ordered to frame the charge U/s 302 IPC against the petitioner/revisionist.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 29.12.2017, complainant alongwith his son went to house No. 808, Kamra Bangash to attend the marriage of son of one Shahid who was also residing at Kamra Bangash. During the barat procession, the complainant, his son and other persons were watching the barat from roof. The petitioner/revisionist was also present in the said barat and at about 11:00 p.m. petitioner/revisionist started firing from his pistol and fired one bullet towards the son of the complainant which hit him on the right side of his chest. The son of the petitioner fell down and thereafter he was removed to the hospital.

3. Initially, on the statement of the complainant and the MLC a case U/s 307/336 IPC & 27/54/59 Arms Act was registered. Thereafter injured Naeem died and section 302 IPC was substituted in place of section 307 IPC.

4. None has appeared for the petitioner/revisionist to make submissions in this case. However, the impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner/revisionist on the grounds that the statement given by a person after his arrest cannot be treated as a statement made U/s 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is also averred in the revision petition that nothing has been mentioned by the witnesses about the intention or motive of the petitioner/revisionist in the entire charge sheet. It is further averred that the Ld. ASJ has failed to appreciate that there is no evidence to prove the charge of murder. The petitioner/revisionist has relied upon Satish Mehra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2013 CRL. Journal 411 in order to support his contention that there is no unimpeachable and acceptable evidence against the petitioner/revisionist in the present case. The petitioner/revisionist has also relied upon Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijay Satardekar and Ors. Crl. Appeal No. 1576-1577 of 2008 to contended that at the stage of framing of the charge the Court may look into the material produced by defence if such material establishes that the whole prosecution version is absurd.

5. The petitioner/revisionist has further relied upon P. Vijayan Vs. State of Karela (2010) 2 SCC 398 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal to contend that if two views are possible and one of them give rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial judge will be empowered to discharge the accused.

6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld APP for the State that at the stage of framing of charge, only prima facie view is to be taken. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 and the Ld. Trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the petitioner/revisionist. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the father of the deceased who is the complainant has categorically stated in his statement that it was the petitioner/revisionist who after wiping out his pistol started firing and fired one bullet towards his son which hit on his chest. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that whatever the defence the petitioner/revisionist wants to take, the same can be taken by him during the course of the trial. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the petitioner/revisionist was having an un-licensed weapon.

7. It is well settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has power to shift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima-facie case against accused has been made out. When the material placed before the court discloses great suspicion against the accused which has not been proper