The standards for charge framing require only strong suspicion of guilt, not proof of guilt, and must adhere strictly to statutory criteria.

J U D G M E N T

The order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi in C.C No.1/2020 discharging the accused in the said case under Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C, which has been upheld in revision by the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Ernakulam, is under challenge in this Original Petition filed by the complainant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The proceedings before the learned Magistrate arose out of a protest complaint filed by the petitioner in Crime No.771/2016 of Palluruthy Police Station, wherein the allegation against the respondents 1 and 2 was that they committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 509, 354 and 448 I.P.C r/w 34 I.P.C. After the completion of the enquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate took the complaint to files as C.C No.1/2020 and issued summons to respondents 1 and 2 herein. Both the respondents appeared before the Trial Court, and they were released on bail. During the course of evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C, the petitioner and one witness were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. Though PW1 was cross-examined, the cross-examination of PW2 was deferred as opted by the defence. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate arrived at the finding that no case against the accused has been made out, which, if unrebutted, would warrant their conviction. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate discharged the accused (respondents 1 and 2 herein) under Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C holding that the charge against them is groundless.

3. The petitioner herein challenged the above order of the learned Magistrate in revision before the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Ernakulam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge embarked upon a detailed evaluation of the evidence on record and held that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Magistrate discharging the accused. Aggrieved by the above concurrent findings of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. As per Ext.P1, which is the complaint upon which the learned Magistrate initiated the proceedings, the allegation against the respondents 1 and 2, who are the petitioner’s brother’s son and brother respectively, is that they criminally trespassed into her house on

27.03.2016, uttered sexually coloured obscene words, slapped her and dragged her by getting hold of her hair. The further allegations in the complaint pertain to the persistent harassment and humiliation meted out to the petitioner by the respondents 1 and 2 by tapping her phone conversations and depicting her and her family members as insane persons with low morale. It is further stated in the complaint that the grievance of the petitioner in the above regard had not been redressed though she preferred numerous complaints before the police and other authorities.

6. While adducing evidence before the Trial Court as PW1, she reiterated the aforesaid allegations, though with minor variations. A neighbour of the petitioner, who was examined as PW2, swore before the learned Magistrate about the act of the respondents 1 and 2 verbally abusing and physically assaulting the petitioner inside her house on 27.03.2016. The learned Magistrate observed in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order that PW1 did not state that she had sustained hurt at the hands of the accused and there was also no medical evidence to show that she had any injury. For the above reason, the learned Magistrate declined to a