The court emphasized that a prima facie case must be established with concrete evidence linking the accused to the alleged crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for framing charges.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner through the medium of the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C has challenged order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the learned Sub-Judge/Spl. Railway Magistrate Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Magistrate’), whereby charges for offences under Section 279, 304-A IPC have been framed against him.

2. As per the charge sheet which has been emanated from FIR No. 32/2020 for offences under Section 279, 304-A IPC registered with Police Station, Gangyal, Jammu on 29.02.2020, police received information from reliable sources that a Swift Dezire vehicle bearing registration No. JK02CB-6163 was being driven by petitioner/accused in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he lost control over the said vehicle and a pedestrian, namely, Dina Nath suffered fatal injuries leading to his death. It was also reported to the police that the driver had fled away after leaving the vehicle on spot.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid information the police registered the FIR and started investigation of the case. During investigation of the case the police conducted spot inspection, seized the dead body of the deceased, seized the vehicle in question and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C After investigation of the case, it was found that on the date of the occurrence the petitioner/accused was driving the vehicle in question and at about 11/11.30 A.M when it was heavily raining, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in death of deceased-Dina Nath. The police during the investigating questioned the petitioner/accused who admitted his crime. Thus, offences under Section 279/304-A IPC were found established against the petitioner/accused and the charge sheet was laid before the learned trial Magistrate.

4. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties and after analyzing the material annexed with the charge sheet found that there is sufficient material on record to prima facie hold that petitioner/accused has committed offence under Section 279/304-A IPC. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated 18.11.2021 charges have been framed against the petitioner/accused.

5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on the grounds that he has been implicated on the basis of confession made by him to the police which is inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It has been contended that the observations made by the learned trial Magistrate that all the witnesses have stated that on the date of occurrence, petitioner accused was driving the vehicle are contrary to the statements available on record. It has been further contended that even if the material collected by the investigating agency during the investigation of the case is accepted on its face value, still then the petitioner-accused could not have been implicated in the alleged offence.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case, grounds of challenge as well as trial Court record.

7. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner in the present case, it would be necessary to understand the legal position as regards the scope of power of a Court while considering discharge of an accused.

8. In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4, the Supreme Court while considering the ambit and scope of a Trial Judge’s power to pass an order of discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, analyzed its previous judgments on the issue and laid down the following principles:

“10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspi