Back
1996 Supreme(MP) 800
J.G. Chitre, J.
Haider Ali Mumtajali And Ors.
vs
State Of M.P.
DECIDED ON : 9 September, 1996
At the stage of framing a charge, the court is not required to assess the probative value of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses. The court need only consider whether there is sufficient material on record to support the charge.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 227, 239, 240 - CHARGE FRAMING - SUFFICIENCY OF GROUNDS - PRESUMPTION OF OFFENSE - SECTION 380 IPC - THEFT - PROBATIVE VALUE OF EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were charged with theft, housebreaking by night, and mischief under sections 380, 427, and 457 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They challenged the framing of the charge for theft, arguing that the evidence against them was insufficient.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the magistrate was justified in framing the charge for theft based on the material collected by the investigating agency. The court noted that the complainant had named the petitioners as the perpetrators of the theft in his FIR and that other prosecution witnesses had placed them at the scene of the crime. The court also held that the magistrate was not required to assess the probative value of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses at the stage of framing the charge.
Issues: 1. Whether the magistrate erred in framing the charge for theft against the petitioners. 2. Whether the evidence against the petitioners was sufficient to support the charge of theft.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the magistrate did not err in framing the charge for theft against the petitioners because there was sufficient material on record to support the charge. The court noted that the complainant had named the petitioners as the perpetrators of the theft in his FIR and that other prosecution witnesses had placed them at the scene of the crime. 2. The court held that the evidence against the petitioners was sufficient to support the charge of theft. The court noted that the complainant had named the petitioners as the perpetrators of the theft in his FIR and that other prosecution witnesses had placed them at the scene of the crime. The court also held that the magistrate was not required to assess the probative value of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses at the stage of framing the charge.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the magistrate's order framing the charge for theft against the petitioners.
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. Heard Shri Umesh Maheshwari, for the petitioners.
Shri A. D. Upadhyay, Panel Lawyer, for prosecution.
The material which has been collected by the investigating agency against the applicant has been considered.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20-6-1995 at about mid night, all the applicants entered into the shop belonging to complainant Didar Ahmed and committed the theft of some of the furniture which was stored in the said shop as well as the cash which was kept in cash box. Prosecution also alleged that all the applicants committed house breaking by night, in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. Prosecution also alleged that they committed the offence punishable under section 427 of Indian Penal Code by committing mischief, causing damage to the complainant above Rs. 50/-. The FIR of complainant Didar Ahmed is dated 21-6-1995. In that FIR Didar Ahmed has alleged that Wasik Ali s/o Issac Ali and Thawar Ali s/o Haidar Ali along with four others had committed the house breaking by night for committing the theft of some of the furniture and cash which was stored in cash box. He has also alleged in the said FIR that those persons had committed the mischief and caused the damage to him which was more than Rs. 50/-. The investigating officer carried the investigation and, thereafter charge sheet was filed against the applicants in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Badwah.
3. Shri Umesh Maheshwari, counsel for the applicants argued that no case has been made out against the applicants punishable under provisions of section 380 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has committed the error of framing the charge against the applicants for that offence. He submitted that the charge on that count needs to be set aside. He made reference to the statements of other witnesses recorded by the investigating agency in view of provisions of section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code).
4. Shri A. D. Upadhyay, panel lawyer appearing for the prosecution placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in the matters of following :
(i) State of Maharashtra etc. etc. v. Som Nath Thapa etc. etc. reported in JT 1996(4) SC 615, (ii) Shri Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration reported in JT 1996 (7) SC 6,
and submitted that in view of the observations of Supreme Court in those judgments and the FIR of complainant Didar Ahmed, the learned Magistrate has rightly framed the charge against the applicants even for an offence punishable under section 380 of Indian Penal Code.
5. In the matter of State of Maharashtra etc. etc. v. Shri Som Nath Thapa, the Supreme Court has held that -
"If on the basis of material on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage".
6. In the matter of Shri Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration (supra), the Supreme Court held that -
"After proceeding in view of provisions of section 226 of the Code, the next provisions (section 227 of the Code) enjoins on the Sessions Judge to decide whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. In so deciding the Judge has to consider (1) the record of the case and (2) the documents produced therewith. He has then to hear the submissions of the accused as well as the prosecution on the limited question whether there is sufficient ground to proceed. What is the scope of hearing the submissions? Should it be confined to hearing oral arguments alon
