- The Hon’ble Delhi HC, in the case of Settu vs State NCT of Delhi has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court can sift and weigh evidence for the limited purpose of deciphering whether a prima facie case against the accused can be made out. The Court also observed that the material which is brought forth by the prosecution has to be accepted as correct.
- The Court further observed that what is required to be seen is whether there is a strong ground for presuming that the accused has actually committed the said offence.
- In the instant case, it was the case of the prosecution that the accused had made her eat a toffee and supari which was laced with an intoxicating substance for the purpose of facilitating an offence of outraging her modesty. It was further alleged that he had disrobed the victim and threatened to get the video viral if she did not give him Rs.2 lakhs.
- The trial Court had framed the charges against the accused under sections 328, 354B and 385 of IPC. In order to get these charges quashed, the accused had filed the present revision petition before the HC.
- The petitioner/accused contended that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution and that the lower Court had not considered the call records which showed that the victim and the accused had been in a relationship.
- The learned APP, on the other hand, alleged that the victim had made specific allegations against the accused in the FIR and later had corroborated the same in her 164 statements. It was also alleged that at the stage of framing of charges, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the evidence is not to be analysed in detail unless something overwhelming is produced by the opposite party so as to totally demolish the prosecution’s case, which has not happened in the present case.
- At the outset, the Hon’ble HC had observed that the trial Court had observed from a totality of facts present before it that a prima facie case against the accused had been made out.
- The HC also observed that at the stage of framing of the charge, the probative value of the evidence that has been placed on record cannot be gone into and the same has to be accepted as true at that stage.
- The Court also observed that at this stage if there is a strong reason to suspect that the accused had actually committed the said offence, then it is not open for the Court to allege that there is no sufficient ground for presuming that the accused had not committed the said offence.
- The Court relied upon a plethora of judgements like Union of India vs Prafulla Kumar AIR 1979 SC, State of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh AIR 1997 SC and Kalu Mal Gupta vs State (2001) Del. to contend that what is required to be seen at this particular stage of framing of charge is that there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that the accused had committed the said offence.
- Thus, the HC found no infirmity with the order of the Trial Court and the revision petition was thereby dismissed.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
