IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that charges must be based on sufficient evidence and cannot be framed on mere assumptions or retracted statements, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 16.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in challan, titled, Union Territory of J&K vs. Sukhwinder Kumar and others by virtue of which the learned trial court has ordered the framing the charges for commission of offence under sections 302, 201 and 34 RPC against the petitioner. It is stated that the challan against the petitioner and one Binny Kumar was initially filed for commission of offences under sections 201 and 109 RPC and the main accused, namely, Sukhwinder Kumar, was charge sheeted for commission of offences under sections 302, 201 and 109 RPC.

2. During the course of arguments on charge/discharge, the learned trial court ordered for further investigation vide order dated 06.02.2020. Pursuant to the order of learned trial court for further investigation, the Senior Superintendent of Police constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for conducting the further investigation. The SIT submitted the detailed report dated 09.01.2021 in which it was stated that the statement of eye witness, namely, Bahadur Singh was got recorded before the JMIC Bishnah and in his statement under section 164-A Cr.P.C., he categorically stated that he has no knowledge about the occurrence due to which the identification parade of the accused persons was not conducted.

3. After the report was filed by the SIT, the learned trial court vide order dated 16.01.2021 (supra) framed the charges against the petitioner for commission of offences under sections 302, 201 and 34 RPC. It is submitted that there was no material before the learned trial court that necessitated the framing of charge for commission of offences under sections 302, 201 and 34 RPC against the petitioner.

4. Mr. Prince Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions made in the petition.

5. On the contrary, Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG has vehemently submitted that the learned trial court can frame the charges on the basis of material collected during the investigation and is not bound by the opinion of the Investigating Officer.

6. Heard and perused the record.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to have brief resume of the allegations against the petitioner. On 19.11.2017, an information was received that the dead body of a person, namely, Vinod Kumar S/o Nek Ram R/o Laswara is floating in a canal and on the basis of this information, inquest proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated by the Police and the post-mortem report was also obtained and from the report it transpired that the deceased died due to damage of the vital organs leading to Cardio Pulmonary Arrest due to Blunt Trauma on the head of the deceased and thereafter a formal FIR bearing No. 01/2019 stands registered on 04.01.2019 for commission of offence under section 302 RPC and investigation commenced. Further on 24.11.2017 one motorcycle bearing JK02BV 6801 belonging to the deceased was also found parked near bank of the canal at a place called Bhadur Khan. The deceased had left home on the said motor cycle and did not return. The said motorcycle was also seized. The statements of the persons acquainted with the circumstances were also recorded. In March, 2019 the said motorcycle was released in favour of the owner on supurdnama. During the course of investigation, the statement of the father of the deceased was also recorded. He stated that on 18.11.2017 his son left home on motorcycle at about 9.30 AM and later was seen with the accused Sukhvinder Kumar alias Kutto S/o Gharu Ram R/o Smailpur, Bari Brahmana. His son did not return home and on the second day, his dead body was found in a canal. He further stated that few days before the death, his son told him that accused Sukhvinder Kumar owed Rs. 30,000/- to him, which he was not returning and Sukhvinder Kumar was absconding from his home