Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Siddharth Mridul
R. Maringchan Maring – Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case leading to revision petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding framing of charges. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's reasoning and applicable legal standards on framing of charges. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. conclusion dismissing the revision petition. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
Siddharth Mridul, C.J.
1. The present criminal revision petition, instituted by R. Maringchan Maring (hereinafter referred to as Revisionist), under the provision of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), seeks to assail the order dated 12.02.2016 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal, Manipur, in Sessions Trial Case No. 4/2015 arising out of FIR No. 34(3) 2014 Kakching Police Station under Section 306 /498- A/34 IPC whereby the charges under the aforementioned sections were directed to be framed against him.
2. The facts, as are necessary for the adjudication of the controversy in the present case in the proper perspective are briefly encapsulated as follows :
a) that admittedly, Smt. Salam Ichal Devi (hereinafter referred to as th
The court ruled that at the charge framing stage, strong suspicion suffices to proceed against the accused, prioritizing witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence over the need for conclusive p....
The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case to be made out against the accused while framing charges, and the importance of considering the broad probabilities of the case and the total effe....
The trial court's jurisdiction is limited, and it should not unduly interfere, and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie.
Point of Law : Once charges have been framed, the issue of discharge becomes redundant, as Courts have no jurisdiction to allow discharge after charges having been framed.
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.
At the initial stage of deciding whether the accused ought to be discharged, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged. The accused has no right to produce any....
The court upheld the presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, affirming sufficient grounds for framing charges of cruelty and abetment against the petitioners.
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
