Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Mangilal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
1. The present revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ladnun, District Nagaur whereby learned Judge framed the charge against the petitioner for offence under Sections 308, 447, 323, 504 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the injury report of injured Sita Devi, she received two injuries and both the injuries were found to be simple in nature. Counsel submits that a specific query was made by the Investigating Officer to the concerned Doctor whether the injuries caused to Sita Devi were dangerous to life or not. In response to the said query, the Doctor opined that both the injuries were simple in nature and not dangerous to life. Thus, the offence under Section 308 IPC is not at all made out against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that in the FIR, the complainant-injured levelled allegation of offence under Section 376/511 IPC against the petitioner but during investigation, the Police did not find the said offence to be proved against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the learned trial co
At the charge framing stage, only prima facie evidence is required, and strong suspicion suffices to proceed against the accused.
Charges under Section 307 IPC were improperly framed as the injuries were not grievous; the court directed charges under Section 308 IPC instead.
The trial court must thoroughly evaluate evidence before framing charges, as mechanical adoption of prosecution's stance is inappropriate.
The court established that intent to commit culpable homicide must be clearly evidenced by the nature of injuries, which was not the case here.
The intention or knowledge of an accused under Section 308 IPC has to be ascertained only prima facie at the stage of charge, based on the injury caused to the victim.
At the charge framing stage, the court only needs to establish a prima facie case indicating the accused might have committed the offence, without delving into the sufficiency of evidence.
The court affirmed that for Section 307 IPC, causing hurt with intent or knowledge is sufficient, and the trial court must assess evidence to determine if charges are warranted.
At the charge-framing stage, only prima facie evidence is required, and strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed against the accused.
The court established that at the charge framing stage, a strong suspicion of guilt suffices to proceed, without requiring proof of the allegations.
Charges under Section 307 IPC cannot be framed without clear evidence demonstrating common intention to kill, emphasizing the need for careful assessment of material at the charge stage.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
