At the charge-framing stage, only a prima facie case is required, and the court must determine if there is strong suspicion of guilt without delving into the merits of the evidence.

Order :

1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 31/2020 whereby, the trial court has framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 316 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent no.2, the accused petitioner was chargesheeted for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 316 IPC. The case was committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh, where arguments on charge were heard and after hearing the arguments, learned trial court framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 316 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the extent of framing charges for offence under Section 316 IPC and submits that the trial court has committed an error of law in framing charge for offence under Section 316 IPC inasmuch as, there is no evidence on record that the accused petitioner caused any injury on abdomen of injured resulting in miscarriage. Even in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 01.01.2019 no averment was made by the injured in this regard. However, on the next day, i.e. 02.01.2019, an allegation was levelled that accused petitioner gave fist blows on her abdomen due to which miscarriage happened. Counsel submits that according to opinion of Medical board, possibility of abortion due to trauma on lower abdomen in early pregnancy is rare. Thus, the trial court has not properly looked into the matter and therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court to the extent of framing charge for offence under Section 316 IPC is liable to be set aside.

4. 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. Counsel for the respondent no.2 argued that as many as five injuries were found on the body of injured and a specific averment has been made by the injured against the petitioner and the Medical Board has clearly opined that the possibility of abortion due to physical and mental trauma in early pregnancy is rare but absolutely cannot be denied, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference, therefore, the present revision petition may be dismissed.

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

5. As per statement of injured, the injured has specifically alleged that the accused petitioner gave fist blows on her abdomen and caused injuries. As per injury report, as many as five injuries were found on the person and as per opinion of the Medical Board also, the possibility of abortion due to physical and mental trauma in early pregnancy is rare but absolutely cannot be denied. In the opinion of this court, the Trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the accused-petitioner, in the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record in this case. 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.

6. 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 Cour