The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is primarily concerned with whether there are evidences to show the existence of the ingredient of the offence charge. If there are material evidences available, the Court need not look into the reliability or credibility or sufficiency of the evidences to prove the charge.

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioner; heard also Mr. Samarjit H., learned Government Advocate for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. praying for setting aside the order dated 10.07.2017 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West, Manipur in Sessions Trial Case No. 35 of 2017 being aggrieved by the framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 400 IPC on the ground that no case has been made out for framing charge under the aforesaid Section.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is a member of Kuki Revolutionary Army (KRA), who was arrested on 14.12.2012 from the residence of one Dr. Chandramani Singh of Thangmeiband Hijam Leikai, Imphal while he came to his house to extort a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh on behalf of KRA. The petitioner was also alleged to have delivered to the doctor a small chit in which the name of said Michael of KRA, a Self Styled Commander, Imphal Finance Division and a mobile number was written, which was seized from his possession.

4. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Court mentioned above, and the Court proceeded to frame charge under Section 400 IPC against the petitioner which has been challenged herein.

5. Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground for framing charge against the petitioner is the allegation that the petitioner is a member of the Kuki Revolutionary Army (KRA), who was arrested while demanding a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from a doctor and handing over a chit in which the name of one Michael of KRA along with his mobile number was written, who was stated to be a commander of Kuki Revolutionary Army (KRA). Mr. Mahendra submits that even if it is held correct that the petitioner was found handing over a chit containing the name of one person who was stated to be a commander of Kuki Revolutionary Army (KRA) along with a mobile number, it does not prove that the petitioner is a member of the KRA. He submits that in the present case, it cannot be said that the ingredients for making offence under Section 400 IPC has been made out.

According to Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 400 IPC can be attracted only if it is shown that the accused belongs to a gang or dacoits, and it has been provided under Section 391 of the IPC that it is only when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity". However, in the present case, only the petitioner was arrested and no other person has been arrested. There is no evidence that there were five or more persons involved in the alleged act of extortion. Therefore, it cannot be said that five or more persons are involved in the alleged attempt to extort money from the aforesaid Dr. Chandramani, and accordingly, the charge of dacoity cannot be framed against the petitioner.

6. Mr. Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution story, as revealed in the charge-sheet filed before the Court, only eight witnesses have been examined in course of the investigation, and by way of material evidence, the small chit and the mobile phone which have been seized at the time of his arrest have been relied upon.

He submits that even if the statements made by the witness mentioned above under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are believed, these do not reveal any ingredient for attracting offences under Section 400 IPC. According to him, even if the statements made by the witnesses mentioned above are taken to be true and evidences/materials relied on by the prosecution are also taken into consideration, yet, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 400 IPC have been made ou