Revision petition challenging the framing of charges in a POCSO case dismissed. Court held trial court correctly relied on prima facie materials and fresh documentary evidence, dismissing challenge.
Petition dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Cr.R. No. 371 of 2022
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant: Shri Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For State/Non-applicant: Shri C. B. Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer.
Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J Order On Board
05.04.2022
2
the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the Applicant and, accordingly offence under Section 366 and 376 of IPC read with Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act has been added and thereafter, the Applicant was arrested by the concerned Police Officer on 23.10.2021. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer has conducted the enquiry and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and others as provided under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and that by considering further the documentary evidence, has submitted the charge sheet before the concerned Court with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act and also Section 3(2)(v) of Atrocities Act. The concerned trial Court after examining the materials placed before it has registered the criminal case against him and framed the charges as mentioned in preceding paragraphs.
3
birth of the prosecutrix has been shown as 15.03.2005, and therefore, she was below the age of 18 years and after considering all these documentary evidence as well as the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the Court below has not committed any illegality in framing the charges as mentioned herein above. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
4
the prima facie materials placed before the Court and nothing more is required to be examined at that particular stage. At this juncture, the principle laid down
by the Supreme Court in the matter of Akbar Hussain v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 85 , is to be seen, wherein, it has been held at para 5, as under:-
5. ………….“ At the time of framing the charge, the trial court has to consider the material before it by the investigating officer and form a prima facie opinion thereupon as to whether it is a fit case for framing of charge under a particular provision. The standard of proof test, which is to be applied at the final stage, in order to find out as to whether the accused is guilty or not on the basis of actual evidence produced is not to be applied at the stage of framing of the charge. Charge can be framed even when there is a strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Court, which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to existence of the factual ingredient constituting the offence alleged.”
16. After referring to Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 in Dinesh Tiwari vs. State of U.P. (2014) 13 SCC 137 the
5
Supreme Court held that for framing charge under section 228 CrPC, the Judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing of parties, if the Judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame the charge against the accused for such offence.
17. .................For framing the charges under Section 228 CrPC, the Judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen. As held in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B. (2000) 1 SCC 722 while exercising power under Section 228 CrPC, the Judge is not required to record his reasons for framing the charges against the accused. ….........”
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE
Nikita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the order of framing charges on the ground that the trial court committed an illegality in applying the POCSO Act due to discrepancy in the date of birth of the prosec
Whether the trial court committed any illegality in framing charges based on prima facie case and available documentary evidence.
Whether strict standard of proof is required at the stage of framing charges under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Akbar Hussain v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and anotherReferred¶27
Akbar Hussain v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another, (2018) 16 SCC 85 · Who else cites this
Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshaym and othersReferred¶28
Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshaym and others, (2020) 2 SCC 217 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 4 enactments
Sumit Kumar Sahu @ Surendra
Sanjay S. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
