IMPORTANT POINT
At the stage of framing charges, the truth, veracity, and the effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously examined, and strong suspicion is enough to frame a charge. The court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record to find out if the facts emerging therefrom disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.

ORDER :

1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh by which the trial court framed the charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 365, 308, 325, 323, 341, 342, 452, 427, 382, 148, 149 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant submitted a written report before the S.H.O. Police Station Gogamedi to the effect that on 15.04.2019 when he was cleaning the liquor shop, at that time, all the accused persons armed with lathi and iron rods assaulted him, ransacked the shop and took away a sumo f Rs.15,350/-.

3. After usual investigation, the police filed challan against the accused petitioners before the competent court and thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, Hanumangarh and after arguments on charge, charges were framed against the petitioners for aforesaid offences.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record to connect the petitioners with the alleged incident. It is argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case for political reasons as there are cross cases between the parties, therefore, the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned trial court is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court after considering the injuries as well as statements of other witnesses rightly framed charges against the petitioners and therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference.

6. I have heard rival contention of the parties and carefully considered the material available on record.

7. Upon perusal of the injury report as well as statement of injured, it is evident that the injured received total 16 injuries including some of them grievous in nature. The injured Rajesh in his statement has clearly mentioned that all the accused came armed with lathi and iron rods in their hand and started beating him mercilessly. It has also been alleged that the accused also destroyed the wine bottles and snatched Rs.15,350/- cash. The intention or knowledge of accused-persons can be gathered from the number of injuries, from the nature of weapon used, from the part of body chosen by the accused-persons for causing injuries. So, in my view, the Trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the accused-petitioners, the same is just and proper in the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record in this case.

8. It is settled law that at the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. At this stage, the Court has only to see whether the unrebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, make way for conviction and if it is so then the charge can be framed. The Court, while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.

9. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of the judgment has laid down the principles which are to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C., which are as below :

"(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained