Nirmal Singh, J.
1. This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, dated 31-08-2005, settling charge under Section 201 of the Ranbir Penal Code against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused-Kulwant Singh, husband of deceased-Indu Devi, was having illicit relations with one Reshmi Devi and he wanted to marry with her. This fact was known to the deceased. On that account on 09-05-2005, there were verbal altercations between the accused-Kulwant Singh (husband) and the deceased-Indu Devi (wife), Kulw-ant Singh fired upon Indu Devi with his licensed revolver and killed her on the spot so that he may marry with Reshmi Devi.
3. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that he fully knowingly well that accused-Kulwant Singh had intentionally killed the deceased-Indu Devi so in order to mis-lead the Police and for screening the accused-Kulwant Singh from the legal punishment, he lodged a false report with the Police that Indu Devi has killed herself by shooting with a revolver. After the completion of investigation of the case, the challan was presented before the trial Court.
4. The trial Court, vide impugned order, charge sheeted accused-Kulwant Singh under Sections 302 RPC and 30 Arms Act, whereas the petitioner-Rameshwar Singh was charge sheeted under Section 201 RFC, aggrieved of which the present revision has been filed.
5. Mr. R.S. Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that there is not iota of evidence to charge sheet the petitioner. He also submitted that at the time of framing the charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents placed on record, with a view to fining out if the facts emerging there from, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constitution the alleged offence. He further submitted that the Court cannot presume that whatever the prosecution states is a gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. In support of his arguments, he relied upon : 1997CriLJ2248 State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj, : 2000CriLJ944 State of M.P v. S.B. Johari, : 2000CriLJ3504 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni and 2004 AIR SCW 6813 State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi. He further submitted that to constitute an offence under Section 201 of the Ranbir Penal Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish:
(a) that the offence has been committed by the accused;
(b) That the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such an offence;
(c) That with such knowledge or belief he:
(i) Caused any evidence of the commissioner of that offence to disappear, or
(ii) Gave any information relating to that offence which he then knew or believed to be false.
(d) That he did so as aforesaid with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.
6. He submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was present or he has given a false information knowing the same to be false with an intention to screen the offender from the legal punishment.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
8. At the time of framing the charge, the Court has to see whether there are sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence and at that stage, the Court is not to see whether the accused is to be convicted or to be acquitted. The accused can be discharged under Section 268 Cr.P.C. if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. The judicial precedents (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not supporting the case of the ' petitioner.
In : 1997CriLJ2248 State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj, it has been held as under:
At the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground from presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.
In : 2000CriLJ944 State of M.P v. S.B. Johari, it has been held as under:
Instead of considering the prima facie case, the High Court in Criminal revision cannot appreciate and weigh the materials on record for coming to the conclusion that charge against the accused could not have been framed. It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for conviction the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence if any, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence. In such case there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.
9. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner is that accused-Kulwant Singh his real brother had killed his wife with his revolver, instead of that, the petitioner gave information to the Police that deceased-Indu Devi has killed herself with revolver with the intention of screening the offender from the legal punishment, for that, the prosecution has recorded the statement of the Officer before whom the petitioner had made a statement on the basis of which DDR was recorded. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no prima facie evidence is without substance.
10. The investigation in this case was started on the statement of the petitioner which was recorded by Shri Kulbir Singh Bhau, Station House Officer, Police Station, Miran Sahib. In his statement, he deposed that deceased Indu Devi was wife of his brother accused-Kulwant Singh and at about 5.30 P.M she killed herself with a Revolver. On this information, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C were started, but subsequently during investigation it revealed that the accused-Kulwant Singh has killed his wife with his revolver. The petitioner has been charged sheeted under Section 201 RPC which reads as under:
Section 201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender:- whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false.
11. Mr. Kulbir Singh Bhau, Station House Officer, Police Station, Miran Sahib is the Investigating Officer of the case and he will prove the statement of the petitioner during the trial. Therefore, there was sufficient material on the record from which it can be prima facie presumed that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 201 RPC.
12. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this revision and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.