At the stage of framing a charge, only prima facie evidence is to be considered, and the accused cannot produce documents to put forth their defense case for the purpose of seeking discharge.

Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J. –

This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.3.2016, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh, District Agra, in Case No. 46 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2013 (State v. Aaram Singh and others), under sections 147, 336, 427, 506, 323, 504, 148 I.P.C., whereby the court below has rejected the discharge application of the revisionists.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists are innocent persons, who have no criminal history but they all have been falsely implicated in this case, which is a counter blast of Case Crime No. 65 of 2013 U/s 302 I.P.C. P.S. Daukee, District Agra, lodged by the revisionists against O.P. No. 2 and others for murder of their father. It is further contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which has been lodged with the aid of section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that from the perusal of the entire evidence on record it appears that no offence is made out against the revisionists under Sections 147, 336, 427, 506, 323, 504, 148 I.P.C., therefore, the impugned order dated 25.03.2016, which has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and has submitted that in wake of the prima facie evidence available against the revisionists, the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application, moved by the revisionists, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Considered the submissions.

6. At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence as available on record is to be considered by the court concerned at the initial stage of framing charges.

7. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge.

8. In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI); 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. If on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.

9. In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others; 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge.

10. In Omwati v. State; AIR 2001 SC 1507 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has restricted the High Court from interfering by holding that the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and farfetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons.

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Sharma v. C.B.I. AIR. 2000 SC 2335, has held that at the stage of 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not open to the Sessions Judge to weigh the pros and cons whether improbability and then proceed