Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Feb 26 : Observing that a judge cannot act as a post office while framing charge against an accused for commission of offence, High Court set aside the order of trial court whereby charge of murder was framed against an accused.
Justice Sanjay Dhar quashed the order of Additional Sessions Judge to the extent of framing of charge under Sections 302 and 34 RPC against the petitioner-accused with the direction to trial judge to frame charges for offences under Sections 201/109 RPC (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence and giving false information) against the petitioner and thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
The petitioner-Vinay Kumar challenged the order dated 16.01.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the charge for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 RPC has been framed against him.
The facts leading to filing of the instant petition by accused-Kumar emerges from the perusal of the Trial Court record are that a charge-sheet was laid by the concerned Police Station, alleging commission of offences under Sections 302, 109 and 201 RPC by co-accused-Sukhvinder Kumar and commission of offences under Sections 201 and 109 RPC against the co-accused-Arun Khajuria and the petitioner-Kumar.
At the time of considering the question of framing of charge, the Trial Court vide its order dated 06.02.2020, instead of determining as to whether or not the charges are made out against the accused-Kumar, directed the investigating agency to conduct further investigation in the case after constituting a Special Investigating Team (SIT).
It was directed by the Trial Court that the investigating agency shall conduct the test identification parade of the accused and collect CDRs of the cell phones of the accused. The further investigation was to be conducted within a period of one month. The trial court thereafter directed the framing of charges for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 RPC against all the three accused.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner-Vinay Kumar submitted before the court that there is not even an iota of evidence against the petitioner, that would even remotely connect him to the commission of murder of the deceased.
Justice Dhar after hearing the petitioner counsel recorded that a Judge cannot be expected to act as a post office and there has to be application of mind while framing the charge and this application of mind court added, has to be reflected in the order itself.
Dealing with the case in hand court said, the material on record of the charge-sheet even if the same remains uncontroverted does not make out a prima-facie offence under Section 302/34 RPC against the petitioner.
“Therefore, it is a fit case, where the Court should interfere and exercise its jurisdiction to quash the impugned order passed by the Trial Court to the extent of framing of charges under Sections 302 and 34 RPC against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of the trial Court to the extent it directs framing of charges for offences under Section 302/34 RPC is set aside. The trial Court shall frame charges for offences under Sections 201/109 RPC against the petitioner and thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with law”, Justice Dhar directed.
Follow our WhatsApp channel