Point of Law : The strong suspicion cannot be pure subjective satisfaction based on moral notions of Judge that here is a case where it is possible that accused has committed offence. Strong suspicion must be suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to court as sufficient to entertain prima facie view that accused has committed offence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 31.10.2018 (for short, the order impugned) passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in challan, titled, State vs. Anil Kumar and others by virtue of which charges under Sections 302, 457, 380, 120-B, 201 and 34 RPC have been framed against the petitioner along with other accused.

2. It is stated that the petitioner figures as an accused in challan titled “State vs. Anil Kumar and others” and charges as mentioned above were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 31.10.2018 on the following grounds:

(i) That the order impugned has been passed in a mechanical manner and without application of mind.

(ii) That perusal of the challan makes it amply clear that prima facie no case under Section 302 RPC is made out against the petitioner as there was no conspiracy between the petitioner and rest of the accused to murder the deceased lady.

(iii) That the petitioner was not even aware of the commission of the alleged offence by the rest of the accused persons and the petitioner came to know about commission of the alleged offence only when he was arrested by the Police.

(iv) That only allegation against the petitioner is that he told other accused persons that the deceased lady was living all alone and was having cash and gold with her and they could easily commit theft in her house and that the house of the said lady was shown by the petitioner to the rest of the accused.

3. Response stands filed in which factual aspects of the case have been narrated and it has been stated that the disputed questions of facts can only be adjudicated by leading evidence during trial.

4. Mr. Jagpaal Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argued that there is no evidence that the petitioner was part of the conspiracy for committing the murder of the deceased lady, as such, learned trial court has wrongly framed the charges for commission of offence under Section 302 RPC against the petitioner.

5. Ms. Palvi Sharma, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG vehemently argued that the learned trial court after examining the material available on record has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient material for framing the charges against the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 302, 457, 380, 120-B, 201 and 34 RPC.

6. Heard and perused the record.

7. It is settled law that while considering the issue of framing charge/discharge of the accused, the trial court has to form opinion on the basis of material on record by the Investigating Officer as to whether there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence or not. The material on record would constitute the statement of witnesses, injury report/post-mortem report along with other material relied upon by the prosecution. At this stage, the trial court cannot indulge in critical evaluation of the evidence, as can be done at the time of final appreciation of evidence after the conclusion of trial but the charge can be framed against the accused even when there is strong suspicion about the commission of offence by the accused. At the same time the trial court is not expected to merely act as post office and frame the charge just because challan for the commission of a particular offence has been filed against the accused. The trial court can sift the evidence brought on record by the prosecution so as to find out as to whether the un-rebutted evidence placed on record fulfils the ingredients of offence or not. If the ingredients are lacking then the Court has no option but to discharge. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 547 has held as under:

"23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court,