IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24572 of 2011 Chandan Kumar & Anr. Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 2. 1.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 14 th June 201 passed by the F.T.C.I, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1240 of 2007, arising out of Gardanibagh P.S.Case No. 927 of 2007 instituted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder the learned court below rejected the petition under order dated 24 th November 2010 filed under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure of petitioner and others for discharge from the case. A Police case was lodged on the basis of written complaint of the informant that he received information by Kumud @ Nepali that his son was being taken away. He rushed to Janta Road where he saw that his son, namely, Vijay Krishna @ Prince was killed. It appears from the records that the Police submitted the Final Form but later on mother of the deceased approached Janta Darwar of Honble Chief Minister, Bihar which led to reinvestigation of the case. During reinvestigation, the names of petitioner and others surfaced. During the investigation, father, mother and sister of the deceased were examined by the Police and they have named the petitioner which has been recorded, as it appears from the order, in different Paragraphs of the case diary. On the conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and others. An application was filed u/s 227 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner and 2 other accused persons. The court below, after hearing the parties and examining the case diary, has found that prima facie sufficient materials against the petitioner and others are available. Accordingly, the application for discharge has been rejected. While rejecting the application, the court below considered several paragraphs of the case diary and the law laid down by the Supreme Court and has rightly refused to pass the order in favor of the petitioner. The Supreme Court while deciding the case in Sri Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and others, reported in 1997 BBCJ 5 (SC) has held that the strict standard of proof normally adhered to at the final stage and the same is not to be applied at the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge petition where the scope of consideration is somewhat different. At this stage, the Court is to confine itself with the sufficient materials available on record in this cont ext, the Apex Court ha held as follows: Para-10: In Alomohan Das V. State of West Bengal (AIR 197.SC 863), Shah,J (as he then was) has observed in the context of considering the scope of committal proceedings under Section 209 of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure (1898) that a Judge can Sift and weigh the materials on record by seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment. It is open to the Court to weigh the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced to check whether there is any basic infirmity. Of course, the exercise is to find out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. 3 Para-11 : In Union of India V. Prafullakumar 1979 Cr.L.J.
154, this Court has observed that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge has The undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. However, their Lordships pointed out that the test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of cash case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion, the Judge would be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At the same time the Court cautioned that roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighing the evidence as if he was conducting the trial is not expected or even warranted at this stage. From above discussion it is clear that the court below was required to see the prima facie case and was not required to go for a mini trial. The court below rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. In this view of the mater, this application cannot survive. Hence the same is rejected. Jay/ (Shivaji Pandey, J)