Deep Appreciation Of Facts Not Required At Stage Of Framing Charges: J&K&L High Court

Deep Appreciation Of Facts Not Required At Stage Of Framing Charges

Case: Mashooq Ahmad Beigh V Union Territory Of J&K & Ors

Coram: Justice Sanjay Dhar

Case No.: CRM(M) No.99/2022

Court Observation: “It is a settled law that while considering the case for charge or discharge of an accused, the court is not required to enter into deeper appreciation of the facts. The evidence and the material available before the trial court is not to be scanned and evaluated in the manner as if the court has to find whether the accused has committed the offence or he is innocent. At the stage of framing of charge, the court has only to consider the material for framing opinion as to whether prima facie offence is committed which would require the accused to be put on trial. A strong suspicion is enough to suggest commission of offence by an accused. At the stage of framing of charge, the court has to merely sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. A meticulous examination of the record, in order to find whether the accused can be held guilty on the basis of the said material, is not to be undertaken.”

In this background the Court observed, a confessional statement made by an accused in the custody of police which leads to discovery of a fact is admissible in evidence. Thus, the statement of the co-accused Suresh Kumar, to the extent it relates to the recovery of charas that had been concealed inside the truck, is definitely admissible in evidence. There is also material on record which substantiates the fact that the petitioner happens to be the owner of the truck in question.

“there is sufficient material on record of the challan to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. The trial court was, therefore, justified in framing the charge against the petitioner and putting him to trial. The jurisdiction of this court to interfere with an order of framing of charge is very limited and in the absence of any grave illegality or perversity in the order framing charge against the petitioner, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said order.”

Previous Posts

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity Of Section 7 Of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Article 226: Laws Of Pleadings Don’t Go Missing In Writ Petitions; Locus Standi Essential To Maintain Writs: J&K&L High Court

Kerala High Court Denies Bail To LTTE Sympathizer Who Overstayed 5 Years In India Without Visa

Non-Renewal Of Contract During Probation Does Not Amount To ‘Retrenchment’ Under Industrial Disputes Act: Gujarat High Court

“No Accused Is Incapable Of Being Reformed”: Allahabad HC Modifies Sentence From Life Term To 10 Yr In S. 304 Part 1 IPC Conviction Case

NCTE Act: Deemed Recognition Is Without Any Limitation Or Time Bar When Conditions Are Satisfied: Gauhati High Court

Provisions Of J&K Juvenile Justice Act 2013 Retrospective, Age Of Juvenility Is 18 Yrs & Not 16: High Court

S 156(3) CrPC – Magistrate Should Order Police Investigation When Cognizable Offence Is Prima Facie Found, Especially In Sexual Offences: Supreme Court

Revision Petition Filed Before High Court By Third Party / Defacto Complainant Maintainable: Supreme Court


Deep Appreciation Of Facts, Framing Charges