- The Delhi High Court, in the case of Shakiluddin @ Babloo v the State has upheld the order passed by the Trial Court framing the charge of murder and consequently, dismissed the revision petition submitted before it by the petitioner/ revisionist.
- Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that when the material placed on record shows great suspicion against the accused, the Court is justified in framing the charges against such accused.
- Brief facts of the case are that the complainant and his were watching a wedding barat from the roof at the venue when the accused/ petitioner/ revisionist fired a bullet which hit the complainant’s son’s chest, eventually causing his death.
- Upon hearing the case, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) at Tees Hazari Courts, Delhi, framed a charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 for murder. Aggrieved by the order of the ASJ, the petitioner-revisionist filed a Revision Petition before the High Court arguing that sufficient/ unimpeachable material wasn’t placed on record to incriminate the accused for the charge of murder.
- The Court remarked that while framing charges, it has the power of shifting and weighing evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether or not a prima-facie case has been made against the accused. The Court further remarked that during the stage of framing charges, probative value of material placed on record cannot be delved into and the matter brought on record by the prosecution will have to be accepted as the truth; without the meticulous assessment of the probative value of the evidence or the defense.
- The petitioner/ revisionist’s contention that the trial judge may discharge the accused if one of the two possible views give rise to mere suspicion as against grave suspicion cannot be held tenable.
- The Court held that existence of a strong suspicion leading the Court to presume that the accused has committed an offence is sufficient ground to proceed with the proceeding against the accused and framing charges against him without applying the standard and test which it applies for determining the guilt of the accused.
- The Court concluded that only prima-facie view must be considered at the time of framing charges and if the materials placed on record suggest that an offence may have been commissioned, a case for framing charges exists. Held, the petition was dismissed.
- In arriving at the conclusion, the court took notice of the fact that a) the order of ASJ took into consideration all material placed on record and the complainant’s statement as a witness and b) no material/ evidence was placed on record by the petitioner.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha?
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!!"
