IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a charge under Section 302 IPC can be framed based on grave suspicion, and the causation of death related to the injuries sustained must be determined through trial evidence, not at the charge-framing stage.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. MP Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam and Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The present application is filed under Section 482 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge-sheet No. 684/2013 dated 05.11.2013 arising out of Silchar PS case No. 1356/2011 dated 18.08.2011. The further challenge is an order dated 04.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar at Silchar in Sessions Case No. 135/2019, whereby formal charge under Section 302/34 IPC has been framed against the petitioners and one Amit Mishra.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present case is that on 18.08.2011 one Ratnadeep Malakar (since deceased) lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Silchar (S) Police Station, alleging, inter-alia, that he is a student of Assam University and on 17.08.2011 at about 3 p.m., some students of IT department of the University assaulted him with rod, branches of trees, iron chain and belt etc. causing serious injury in various part of his body, including his right eye. It was further alleged that an amount of Rs. 2,340/-was also snatched away from the said informant. It was also alleged in the FIR that out of the said students, he could identify one Amit Mishra of IT department and he could recognize the other accused persons, if he sees them.

4. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, Silchar PS case No. 1356/2011 was registered under Section 143/325/379 IPC. Thereafter, on 15.09.2011, the victim died and after death of the victim, the investigating officer added Section 302 IPC and subsequently charge-sheet was filed as recorded hereinabove and charges were framed.

5. Argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners:

I. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the material available on record, argues that the incident took place on 17.08.2011 and on 19.08.2011, the deceased was examined by doctor and he was advised for eye treatment at Sankardev Netralaya, Guwahati. Accordingly, the deceased was taken to eye specialist at Sankardev Netralaya on 23.08.2011 and he was treated at Sankardev Netralaya as an outdoor patient till 30.08.2011. When his injury in the eye got a little better, he was asked to come for checkup after 21 days. According to Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, it is also on record that on 31.08.2011, the deceased came back to his residence at Karimganj. He felt unwell on 12.09.2011 and was taken to Karimganj Hospital. Treating doctor referred him to Assam Medical College & Hospital, Silchar, however, on the way to hospital, when his condition deteriorated, he was taken to Redcross Hospital, Silchar and he was released from the said hospital on 14.09.2011 with an advice to take rest. However, on 15.09.2011, his condition started deteriorating and he expired on the same date. Therefore, in the aforesaid factual backdrop projected by the prosecution itself, according to Mr. Choudhury, there cannot be any causal relation between the death and the injury inflicted upon the deceased. Accordingly, Mr. Choudhury contends that on the basis of such material, there cannot be any suspicion not to say grave suspicion of commission of an offence of murder.

II. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that the impugned order dated 04.03.2023, whereby the charge has been framed, the learned trial court itself is not confident about the material on the basis of which charge under Section 302 IPC can be framed inasmuch as the charge has been framed subject to evidence that can be produced during the course of trial. According to Mr. Choudhury, such course of action is not permissible under section 212 and 213 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore the order of framing charge is liable to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled for discharge from the charge under Section 302 IPC.

III. Mr. Choudhury,