Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 156/2023
STATE Vs. SANTOSH SAINI
FIR No. 1063/2022
PS Subhash Palace
27.08.2024
Present : Ms. Geeta Bansiwal, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State.
Sh. Kamla Kant Jha, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Accused is on bail.
Arguments on charge have already been heard.
It is contended by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that a strong
prima-facie case is made out against all the accused for the offence
u/s.307/109/114 IPC r/w Section 25/27 Arms Act.
Per contra, it is contended by the Ld. Counsel that the accused
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. That the accused
is not named either in the complaint or in the FIR. That the accused did
not participate in the commission of the offence actively. That it is the
co-accused namely D. Moon, who has committed the offence in
question.
I have considered the submissions and gone through the
record. The statement of the witnesses recorded u/s.161 Cr.PC are also
considered. The law on the point of charge has been discussed in detail
by Hon'ble Apex Court in State Vs. A. Arun Kumar and Anr 2015 (2)
SCC 2014. The relevant portion of the judgment is being reproduced
herein below:-
“8. The law on the point is succinctly stated by this Court in Sajjan
Kumar v. CBI[2] wherein after referring to Union of India v. Prafulla
Kumar Samal[3] and Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of
Maharashtra[4] this Court observed in para 19 thus:
"It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which
leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the
Contd.....P/2
-- 1 of 3 --
-:: 2 ::-
accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to
say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be
drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima
facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the
evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce prove the guilt of
the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-
examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show
that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no
sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial."
This Court the went on to cull out principles as regards scope of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, which in our view broadly apply
to Sections 238 and 239 of the Code as well. It was observed thus in
para 21: "Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 of
Cr.P.C.
21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Section
227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges
under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and
weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or
not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The
test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of
each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained,
the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding
with the trial.
(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of
the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the
case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced
before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage,
there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an
opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame
the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the
material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge
the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on
record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the
Contd.....P/3
-- 2 of 3 --
-:: 3 ::-
accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to
evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find
out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses
the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected
even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as
gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad
probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion
only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be
empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see
whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
At this stage, the proposed evidence can be sifted to the
extent of deciding a prima-facie case to proceed against the
accused persons.
After going through the contents of the chargesheet and
the documents annexed therewith, I am of the view that there is a
strong suspicion against all the accused of having committed the
offences u/s.307/109/114 IPC.
Charge framed accordingly to which accused has
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Let, the victim be summoned through IO for the NDOH.
Be listed for PE on 03.01.2025.
(Rajinder Kumar)
ASJ-05/North-West District
Rohini Courts/Delhi/27.08.2024
-- 3 of 3 --