The trial court upheld the framing of murder charges without necessitating detailed reasoning, confirming that a prima facie case existed based on evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The informant was going to his home on 06.08.2021. When he reached near the shop of Ashok Kumar, he saw the petitioner/accused moving with a gun. The accused was challenging the people to touch the fence and threatening them to shoot, in case, any person dared to touch the fence. Surjeet Singh etc. were standing near the fence. When Surjeet Singh reached near the fence, Gopal Krishan shot at him. Surjeet Singh suffered an injury on his chest and fell. The wife of Gopal Krishan was moving with a bag, which was containing the cartridges. Gopal Krishan took the cartridge from his wife and again started threatening the people. The people ran away. Gopal Krishan and his wife remained on the spot. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR. Subsequently, Surjeet Singh succumbed to his injuries and Section 302 of IPC was added. The police conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC after the completion of the investigation.

2. The Learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-Gopal Krishan for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the ARMS ACT . The learned Trial Court also framed charges against the petitioner-Asha Rani for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. Being aggrieved from the order framing the charge, the present revision has been filed asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in framing the charge. No reasons were assigned while framing charges. The learned Trial Court is to sift the evidence to find out whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. The petitioner-Gopal Krishan fired in exercise of his right of private defence against the crowd, which was damaging the property of the petitioner. The first fire was shot in the air to warn the hostile crowd. There was a grave and sudden provocation as per the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the charge should not have been framed against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

4. In the petition filed by Asha Rani it was asserted that no offence is established against the petitioner. There was no common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged plan between Asha Rani and her husband. There was a demarcation dispute and the main accused fired in self-defence. No case is made out against the petitioner and continuation of the proceedings will result in harassment. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order framing the charge be set aside.

5. I have heard Mr. Mohit Thakur and Mr. Pawan Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

6. Mr. Mohit Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court framing the charge is bound to record the reasons and failure to record the reasons vitiates the order passed by the learned Trial Court. In the present case, no reasons have been assigned and the orders suffer from patent illegality. He relied upon the judgments in Ghulam Hassan Beigh versus Mohammad Maqbool Mag