The court emphasized that framing charges requires a prima facie case supported by credible evidence and witness statements without conducting a mini trial.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 438 and 442; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307 and 34; Arms Act, 1959 - Charge framing - Petition challenging the framing of charges of attempted murder and firearm offences - Viewed the credibility of the statement given by the injured in light of contradictions and delay in reporting - Determined the presence and involvement of the accused based on prima facie evidence and statements. (Paras 1-20)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Charge Framing Standards - Court's obligation to determine if a prima facie case exists without conducting a mini trial; material must create grave suspicion to justify charges. (Paras 10-12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to overturn the charges framed against him for allegedly shooting the victim. The crucial events occurred during the night of June 9, 2015, with the victim being shot while seated outside his home, and the petitioner being accused despite providing evidence of his alibi. (Paras 2-8)

Findings of Court:
The Court found sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioner warranting the framing of charges under the relevant sections, highlighting the determination of the presence of the accused outside of his home during the time of the incident, as corroborated by witness statements and medical findings. (Paras 10-20)

Issues: The primary issues revolved around the credibility of witness statements, the timing of the victim's hospitalization, the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the crime scene, and the interpretation of forensic reports suggesting possible self-infliction of injuries. (Paras 7-10)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that a reasonable suspicion existed based on victim’s detailed statements and medical reports, asserting that the trial court must evaluate evidence to establish whether sufficient grounds exist for charging the accused without engaging in a full trial. (Paras 11-12, 19-20)

Result: Petition dismissed and the order of framing of charges upheld.

Table of Content
1. filing of petition under relevant sections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments questioning evidence and eyewitness reliability. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. criteria for framing charges and prima facie case. (Para 14 , 19)
5. dismissing the petition and order for compliance. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking the following prayers: -

“a) Call for the records of the present case from the Ld. Trial Court.

b) Allow the revision of the revisionist and set aside impugned Order on Charge and Framing of Charge Dated 08.11.2024 passed by the passed by the Court of Ms. Shail Jain, Ld. Principal Distt. & Session Judge (East), KKD Courts, Delhi under section 307/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act in SC No. 396/22 thereby discharged the revisionist;

b) Pass such other and/or further order(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, in the interest of justice.”

2. Briefly stating facts of the present case are that, on 10.06.2015 at around 02:10 AM, vide a DD No. 4A of the even date, an information was received at PS Geeta Colony from LNJP Hospital whereby it was informed that one person named Shahzad s/o Shakir, aged 23 years, had been admitted in the hospital as he had arrived there from his home in an injured condition and that an Investigation Officer is required in the hospital. In pursuance of this information, SI Vinit along with Ct. Shish Pal went to LNJP Hospital and collected a MLC No. ECF-006966 dated 10.06.2015, whereby the aforenamed Shahzad was reported to have sustained injuries by firearm near his home. Subsequently, the injured/complainant was declared fit to make statement, however, he refused to make any statement to the SI present in the hospital. Then, SI Vinit went to the alleged crime spot, i.e., the home of the injured and inquired regarding the happening of the alleged incident of firing of gunshots. Thereafter, FIR No. 340/2015, under Sections 307/34 of the IPC and Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959, was registered at PS Geeta Colony.

3. Then, on 11.06.2015, SI Vinit again went to the crime spot and inquired from the neighbors regarding the alleged incident, however, all the efforts were in vain. SI Vinit, again on the same day, went to LNJP Hospital and recorded the statement of the injured, Shahzad, wherein, the latter give a detailed statement narrating the entire incident and stated that on 09.06.2015, during night at around 11:30 PM, when he was surfing on internet in mobile phone while sitting on slab outside the gate of his house, the present petitioner along with 2-3 boys came there and fired a gunshots at him by taking out a country made pistol (katta). Investigation was conducted in the aforesaid FIR and chargesheet was filed on 15.01.2021 arraying the present petitioner as accused in the present case.

4. Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge vide order dated 19.04.2022, framed charges against the petitioner, however, the same was challenged before this Court by way of CRL.REV.P. 726/2022 on the ground that the learned Presiding Judge did not record the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The said revision petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.04.2022 of this Court with the directions that all the possible contentions raised on behalf of the present petitioner before the learned Trial Court shall be dealt with.

5. In pursuance of the directions passed by this Court, a detailed order on framing of charge, after hearing the submissions of behalf of the petitioner, has been passed by the learned Trial Court on 08.11.2024, whereby the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act have been framed against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been filed assailing the said o