Framing Of Charge- Probative Value Of Materials Cannot Be Gone Into, Material Brought On Record By Prosecution To Be Accepted As True

Case: Settu V. State Nct Of Delhi

Coram: Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar

Case No.: CRL.REV.P. 13/2022

Court Observation: “The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or under Section 228 of the Code. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused,”

“No roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial was being conducted. If on the basis of materials on record a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case of framing of charge exists,”

“To put it differently, if the courts were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame a charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that accused has committed the offence. At the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on records cannot be gone into, the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.”

“It has also come in the CDR record that the petitioner and the complainant were known to each other prior to the incident and now whether the physical relations were consensual or forced is a matter of evidence which could only be tested when the victim would appear in the witness box and her statement can be analysed in depth. At this stage, and at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie view is to be taken,”

Previous Posts

SARFAESI Rajasthan HC Imposes 2Lac Cost For Misrepresentation, Not Availing Alternative Remedy, Not Impleading Necessary Parties & For Keeping Court In Dark

Non Placing & Non Consideration Of Bail Order Vitiates Detaining Authority Subjective Decision: Tripura HC Sets Aside Detention Order

Preventive Detention Not Tenable When Other Penal Laws Sufficient to Deal with the Situation: Gujarat High Court

Writ Petition to Initiate In-House Inquiry against Judges Alleging Misconduct Not Maintainable: Kerala High Court

Can’t Upset Concurrent Findings on Facts Unless There Is Any Illegality, Infirmity or Error of Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court

Suppression of Information about Criminal Case by Candidate in Selection Process Can Be Ignored In Certain Situations: Supreme Court

Claimants Can’t Be Allowed to Take Double Benefit of Two Claims Filed under Two Different Statutes i.e. Motor Vehicle Act & Workmen Compensation Act, Rajasthan HC

Nothing On Record To Even Remotely Suggest That The Act Was Consensual: Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction Download Judgement