Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Manjeet Kaur - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
CRR No. 3186 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-02-2022
FIR No.233 dated 04.12.2016 - Criminal Revision Petition - Arms Act, 1959, Sections 302, 336, 148, 149 IPC - Sections 25, 27 Arms Act, 1959
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition challenging the refusal to alter the charge framed against the accused in a case involving the death of the petitioner's wife during a marriage function. The petitioner sought alteration of the charge to include offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act, 1959.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction for alteration of charge, and the material on record prima facie suggested that the accused had committed the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 336 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act, 1959. The trial Court was misdirected by the partisan stand of the prosecution agency and failed to apply judicial mind in recording satisfaction for the purposes of framing appropriate charges against the accused.
Issues: The issues included the refusal of the trial Court to alter the charge, the misdirection by the trial Court influenced by the prosecution agency, and the failure to apply judicial mind in framing appropriate charges against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The trial Court must independently evaluate the material on record to form an opinion for framing charges. The trial Court should not act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution and must consider the broad probabilities of the case. The enabling provision of Section 216 Cr.P.C confers an extraordinary power on the trial Court to alter or amend the charge at any stage before the pronouncement of final judgment.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the application for alteration of charge was allowed. The trial Court was directed to frame the charges afresh against the accused persons and proceed with the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Bajaj, J.
1. The petitioner had filed this criminal revision petition to challenge the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, refusing to alter the charge framed on 15.09.2017 against accused (respondent Nos.2 and 3), in case FIR No.233 dated 04.12.2016 under Sections 302, 336, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda.
2. The facts in brief leading to the petition are as under:-
3. The above FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered on the complaint given by Rajinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, husband of Kulwinder Kaur (deceased) and the relevant extract of the same reads as under:-
4. After registration of the above case, the investigation was carried out and during investigation, the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 336 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act, 1959 were substituted with offences punishable under Section 304-A and 336 IPC and Section 30 Arms Act, 1959.
5. Upon completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C was filed on 07.03.2017 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talwandi Sabo, but before it could be considered, an application was moved on behalf of the Public Prosecutor for committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, as prima facie, the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC was made out. The said application was allowed by Magistrate vide order dated 03.07.2017 and the case was committed for Sessions trial.
6. Thereafter, on considering the final report as well as the arguments of the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide his order dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure P-2) framed the charges against accused/respondent No.2, namely, Lucky Kumar @ Billa for alleged commission of the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 336 IPC, whereas respondent No.3, namely, Sanjay Goyal was charged for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 30 Arms Act, 1959.
7. During the pendency of the case, the complainant, namely, Rajinder Singh died and mother of the victim, namely, Manjeet Kaur wife of Baldev Singh (petitioner) preferred an application dated 07.03.2018 (Annexure P-9) for alteration of charge on the ground that the material on record indicated commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act, 1959 apart from the offence under Section 336 IPC. It was pleaded
The court affirmed that at the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case is required, emphasizing that meticulous examination of evidence is not necessary.
The court determined that at the discharge stage, only a prima facie case is considered, and sufficient evidence of grievous injury justified framing charges under attempted murder.
The court modified the conviction of Subhash from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for evidence of common intention in joint criminal acts.
The court established that the standard for framing charges is a presumption of guilt based on available evidence, distinct from the standard required for conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence at the time of framing of charges.
The contested evidence and intent are sufficient to establish guilt under Section 307 IPC, notwithstanding deficiencies in investigation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
