IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that at the charge framing stage, a strong suspicion of guilt suffices to proceed, without requiring proof of the allegations.

ORDER :

(Manoj Kumar Garg, J.)

1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchaman City, District Didwana Kuchaman in Sessions Case No. 74/2021 whereby, the trial court has framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 327, 329, 384 read with 34 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent complainant submitted a written report before the SHO, P.S. Kuchaman city, District Nagaur to the effect that on 10.04.2014 when he was sitting at Todu Chaywala hotel, one Hari Prasad who had bought land and dispute was going on, came alongwith Shivraj and started beating him with fist and blows. The accused persons allegedly threatened the complainant and also took away gold idol tied on his neck.

3. On this report, the police started investigation and after due investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioners for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 384, 327/34 IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchaman city, where arguments on charge were heard and after hearing the arguments, learned trial court framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 327, 329, 384/34 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has committed an error of law in framing charges for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 327, 329, 384/34 IPC inasmuch as, the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case, as a civil dispute regard the plot in question was already going on between the parties and the complainant has tried to give a criminal color to a civil dispute. It is argued that no such injury has been caused by the petitioners so as to framed charges for the aforesaid offences as the injuries are simple in nature. It is argued that charge for offence under Sections 325, 327 IPC has been framed only on the basis of CT Scan test which was conducted after one month of the incident. Thus, the trial court has not properly looked into the matter and therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent 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, therefore, the present revision petition may be dismissed.

6. I have considered the rival arguments and perused the material available on record including the challan papers.

7. As per statement of injured as well as challan papers, it is evident that the accused petitioners assaulted the complainant with fist blows and caused injuries. As per injury report including the CT Scan report, the two ribs of injured got broken. In the opinion of this court, the Trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the accused-petitioners, 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