Point of Law: Reliability of statements of PWs - To pronounce a verdict on reliability of statements of PWs, who have clearly in their statements linked petitioner with commission of alleged crime.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner has challenged order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) whereby charges for offences under Sections 302/109/34 RPC and 8/21/27 NDPS Act have been framed against the accused including the petitioner herein.

2. Before coming to the instant petition, let me give brief background of the facts leading to filing of instant petition.

On 29.06.2019, the police of Police Station, Manjakote received an information that one person namely Mohd Mukhtyar had consumed some narcotic drug and that he has been taken to Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu from Rajouri Hospital for his treatment where he breathed his last in suspicious circumstances. The police initiated the inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C so as to ascertain the cause of death of the deceased. During these proceedings, it was found that the deceased had advanced a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the accused Irfan Khan and when the said amount was demanded back by the deceased, the aforesaid accused in connivance with other accused, after purchasing four doses of heroine (Chitta), administered double dose of Chitta to the deceased with an intention to kill him. As a result of this, the deceased fell unconscious. He was taken to Rajouri Hospital for treatment where from he was referred to the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu where he breathed his last. Accordingly, the police registered a FIR bearing Registration No. 74/2019 for offences under Sections 302/109 RPC and started investigation of the case. During investigation of the case, the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC and the statements of some material witnesses under Section 164- A Cr.P.C were recorded. Upon investigation of the case, offences under Sections 302/109/34 RPC and 8/21/27 NDPS Act were found established against the accused including the petitioner herein. The charge-sheet was, accordingly, laid before the learned trial Court.

3. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court vide its detailed order dated 28.02.2020, which is impugned herein, framed the charges for offences under Sections 302/109/34 RPC and 8/21/27 NDPS Act against the accused including the petitioner herein.

4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of framing of charges on the grounds that there is no material on record assembled by the investigating agency to even remotely suggest that the other accused had purchased doses of drug that was administered to the deceased from the petitioner and co-accused Rohit Sharma on payment of Rs.2000/-; that the learned trial Court, while framing the charges against the petitioner herein, has acted as a Post Office without ascertaining as to whether there was any material on record to support the allegations made by the prosecution against the petitioner in the charge-sheet; that even though two of the prosecution witnesses have indicated in their statements certain facts against the petitioner, yet those statements are absurd and inherently improbable on which no reliance can be placed for proceeding against the petitioner; and that the impugned order, so far as it relates to framing of charges against the petitioner, is unsustainable in law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while elaborating the aforesaid grounds with reference to the material on record, has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy and others, (1977) 2 SCC 699 and Satish Mehra vs. State (NCT of Delhi ) and another, (2012) 13 SCC 614.

6. The respondent has contested the petition by filing its objections to the same. In its objections, the respondent has reiterated the facts narrated in the charge sheet and it has defended the impugned order by stating that the same is in accordance with law and that it does not call for any interference.

7. I have hea