At the charge framing stage, the court only requires a prima facie case based on existing evidence without deep scrutiny of its probative value.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. The petitioner figures as one of the accused along with Sub-Inspector Neeraj Kumar, Munshi-Kulbir Singh, Karyasahayak-Amit Kumar, Selection Grade Constable Mohd. Hanif, Deep Kumar @ Deepu and Rajni in charge-sheet tilted “UT of J&K vs. Deep Kumar @ Deepu and others” pending before the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (for short 'the Trial Court').

2. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 14.07.2022 (for short 'the order Impugned'), by virtue of which the petitioner has been charged for commission of offences under Section 307, 323, 193, 195-A, 212, 218, 225-A, 120-B RPC, has assailed the order impugned primarily on the ground that there is not even an iota of evidence against the petitioner in the charge-sheet and there is no incriminating material in respect of the petitioner, but despite that the learned trial court has charged the petitioner for commission of aforesaid offences. It is also urged by the petitioner that earlier he was associated and cited as witness during investigation of the case and even his statement under Section 164-A Cr. P.C., as was applicable at the relevant point of time, was also recorded, but subsequently without there being any evidence against the petitioner, he was arrayed as accused and charge-sheet was filed against him.

3. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statements of four witnesses i.e. PWs Birbal, Surinder Kumar, Shamsher Ali and Rakesh Kumar to buttress his submissions that there was no evidence against the petitioner but despite that he has been arrayed as accused in the charge-sheet. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand , (2023) 11 SCC 636 and CBI v. Srinivas D. Sridhar , (2025) 1 SCC 378 .

4. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG has argued that at the stage of framing of charge-sheet, evidence cannot be meticulously appreciated and, in this case, a Special Investigating Team was constituted. Though, the petitioner was earlier cited as a witness but subsequently his involvement was found in the commission of offence and as such, he was arrayed as an accused on the basis of statements made by two witnesses i.e. PWs Birbal and Surinder Kumar.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the accused Deep Kumar @ Deepu was detained in Police Post, Supwal as preventive measure under Sections 107 and 151 Cr. P.C. PSI Neeraj Kumar, Kulbir and Amit Kumar were posted as In-charge, Munshi and Karyasahayak respectively in the Police Post, Supwal. Besides them, PWs Shamsher Ali and Rakesh Kumar were posted as Sentries and PW Mohd. Hussain was posted as Selection Grade Constable in the said Police Post. The petitioner was posted as Head Constable in the same Police Post. On 16.07.2017 at 08.30 hours complainant Rashpal S/o Inderjeet lodged a written complaint at Police Post Supwal alleging therein that his father, who owned a shop in village Supwal alongside National Highway, opened his shop around 04.30 hours as usual and began to lit the furnace, when some unknown persons came and attacked his father and out of the those persons, one person was armed with sharp edged weapon, who inflicted grievous injuries on the head, neck and chest of his father with the intention to kill him. His father reached home in an injured condition, wherefrom he and his brother Subash sh