At the stage of framing charges, only a strong suspicion of the accused committing an offense is required, and the final test of guilt is not applied at this stage.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.07.2019, passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metro, In Criminal Case No.51/2019 whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 324, 325 & 307/34 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant has mentioned in his FIR that the petitioners have beaten him with sword, baseball bat and iron rods but as per report submitted by the Medical Jurist, all the injuries implicated by the petitioners are not dangerous to life and learned trial Court without appreciating the report of medical jurist, framed the charges under Section 307 IPC. In these circumstances, charges framed against the petitioners for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC may be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.411/2017 (Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State & Anr.), decided on 25.01.2017.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the material available on record. According to the injury report of injured Rajendra Singh, he received as many as ten injuries in all, in which one injury is on his head and he sustained four fractures. According to statement of injured, it is clearly mentioned that accused come with an iron rod alongwith other weapons and caused injures.

5. In the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 460, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the initial stage of framing of a charge, the Court is concerned not with the proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the Court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage.

6. In the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2013) 11 SCC 476, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as below :

"While framing charges, court is required to evaluate materials and documents on record to decide whether facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that accused had committed offence. But it should not evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict accused. Even if there is a grave suspicion against the accused and it is not properly explained or court feels that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charges against the accused is justified. It is only for conviction of accused that materials must indicate that accused had committed offence but for framing of charges if materials indicate that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charge is proper. Materials brought on by prosecution must be believed to be true and their probative value cannot be decided at this stage. The accused entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by prosecution. He is not entitled to produce any material at this stage and the court is not required to consider any such material, if submitted. Whether the prima facie case made out depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. If two views are possible and materials indicate mere suspicion, not being grave suspicion, against accused then he may be discharged. The court has to consider broad probabilities of case, total effect of evidence and documents produced before it. The court should not act as mouthpiece of prosecution and it is impermissible to have rovin