IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to order dated 01.05.2024, passed in Sessions Trial No.207 of 2023, State vs. Satnam Singh alias Tiger and others, by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By which, charges have been framed against the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 34, 354 read with 34, 504 read with 34, 506 read with 34 and against Satnam Singh, charged under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 has also been filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.

3. The case is based on FIR No.117 of 2022, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 354, 307 IPC, Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar. According to it, on 09.05.2022, injured Joga Singh first abused by the applicants. Joga Singh conveyed it to the informant, with whom, he was working. When informant reached at the place of the incident, the FIR records that the applicants opened fire with their licensed firearms, which hit Joga Singh near his head. The informant and Joga Singh tried to escape. In the meanwhile, many persons came there including Mannat Kaur, the wife of Joga Singh. The FIR records that the revisionists also molested Mannat Kaur, did maar peet with her and her clothes were torn.

4. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the revisionists. On 23.09.2023, cognizance was taken and the revisionists were summoned to answer the accusation. At the stage of framing of the charge, arguments were advanced on behalf of the revisionists. On 19.03.2024, the court observed that there are sufficient material to frame charge against the revisionists for the offences, punishable under Sections 504, 506, 354 read with Section 34, 307 IPC and Section 30 of The Arms Act, 1959. Accordingly, on 01.05.2024, charges were framed against them. It is impugned herein.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that offence under Section 354 IPC is not made out. Witnesses Gurpreet Singh and Digbagh Singh have not supported the prosecution case on that count. The clothes torn were also not taken into custody by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the revisionists ought to have been discharged of the offence under Section 354 IPC.

6. On the charge under Section 307 IPC, it is argued that the injury is simple in nature. It is also not clear that the injury was caused by the firearm and there is no FSL report. Therefore, this charge is also not made out.

7. Learned State counsel would submit that Dr. Gurpal Singh has stated that the injured has revealed that he has sustained gunshot injury. The injured had two lacerated wound, one on his head. It is argued that the victim Mannat Kaur has stated that she was molested and her clothes were torn by the revisionists. Therefore, it is argued that there is no reason to make any interference in this revision.

8. It is a stage of framing of charge. The level of satisfaction for framing of charge is quite distinct. The satisfaction should be on higher degree than that is required for taking cognizance, but in lesser degree that is required for recording a finding of guilt.

9. As per Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if the Judge is of the opinion that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, charges can be framed. This Section reads as follows:-

“228. Framing of charge.— (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which—

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on