JUDGMENT : Rajnesh Oswal, J. 1. The petitioner figures as one of the accused along with Sub-Inspector Neeraj Kumar, Munshi-Kulbir Singh, Karyasahayak-Amit Kumar, Selection Grade Constable Mohd. Hanif, Deep Kumar @ Deepu and Rajni in charge-sheet tilted “UT of J&K vs. Deep Kumar @ Deepu and others” pending before the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (for short 'the Trial Court'). 2. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 14.07.2022 (for short 'the order Impugned'), by virtue of which the petitioner has been charged for commission of offences under Section 307, 323, 193, 195-A, 212, 218, 225-A, 120-B RPC, has assailed the order impugned primarily on the ground that there is not even an iota of evidence against the petitioner in the charge-sheet and there is no incriminating material in respect of the petitioner, but despite that the learned trial court has charged the petitioner for commission of aforesaid offences. It is also urged by the petitioner that earlier he was associated and cited as witness during investigation of the case and even his statement under Section 164-A Cr. P.C., as was applicable at the relevant point of time, was also recorded, but subsequently without there being any evidence against the petitioner, he was arrayed as accused and charge-sheet was filed against him. 3. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statements of four witnesses i.e. PWs Birbal, Surinder Kumar, Shamsher Ali and Rakesh Kumar to buttress his submissions that there was no evidence against the petitioner but despite that he has been arrayed as accused in the charge-sheet. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand , (2023) 11 SCC 636 and CBI v. Srinivas D. Sridhar , (2025) 1 SCC 378 . 4. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG has argued that at the stage of framing of charge-sheet, evidence cannot be meticulously appreciated and, in this case, a Special Investigating Team was constituted. Though, the petitioner was earlier cited as a witness but subsequently his involvement was found in the commission of offence and as such, he was arrayed as an accused on the basis of statements made by two witnesses i.e. PWs Birbal and Surinder Kumar. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Though, the petitioner was earlier cited as a witness but subsequently his involvement was found in the commission of offence and as such, he was arrayed as an accused on the basis of statements made by two witnesses i.e. PWs Birbal and Surinder Kumar. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the accused Deep Kumar @ Deepu was detained in Police Post, Supwal as preventive measure under Sections 107 and 151 Cr. P.C. PSI Neeraj Kumar, Kulbir and Amit Kumar were posted as In-charge, Munshi and Karyasahayak respectively in the Police Post, Supwal. Besides them, PWs Shamsher Ali and Rakesh Kumar were posted as Sentries and PW Mohd. Hussain was posted as Selection Grade Constable in the said Police Post. The petitioner was posted as Head Constable in the same Police Post. On 16.07.2017 at 08.30 hours complainant Rashpal S/o Inderjeet lodged a written complaint at Police Post Supwal alleging therein that his father, who owned a shop in village Supwal alongside National Highway, opened his shop around 04.30 hours as usual and began to lit the furnace, when some unknown persons came and attacked his father and out of the those persons, one person was armed with sharp edged weapon, who inflicted grievous injuries on the head, neck and chest of his father with the intention to kill him. His father reached home in an injured condition, wherefrom he and his brother Subash shifted him to District Hospital, Samba for treatment. They apprehended that the occurrence took place because of conspiracy hatched by Deep Kumar @ Deepu, as one day prior to the incident, he had threatened his father to kill him. On receipt of this information, report No. 3 dated 16.07.2017 was entered in the Daily Diary Register, extract of which was sent to Police Station, Samba, pursuant to which, FIR No. 145/2017 under Section 307, 452 and 34 RPC was registered, and the investigation was entrusted to Sub-Inspector, Neeraj Kumar, In-charge Police Post, Supwal. While the matter was being investigated, the aggrieved party being not satisfied with the investigation, lodged a complaint with the IGP, Jammu, as a result of which SIT was constituted. While the matter was being investigated, the aggrieved party being not satisfied with the investigation, lodged a complaint with the IGP, Jammu, as a result of which SIT was constituted. After going through the case diary and investigating the accused Deep Kumar, it was found that two persons, namely, Surinder Kumar and Birbal were also lodged in the Police Lockup during the intervening night of 15/16 of July, 2017. Their statements were recorded. Besides the above- mentioned independent witnesses, statements of two sentries, namely, Shamsher Ali and Rakesh Kumar were also recorded. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against seven accused persons including the petitioner herein. 7. Before this court proceeds ahead to consider the rival contentions of the parties, it would be apt to take note of the relevant case laws/judicial precedents, where in the parameters have been laid down for the courts for the purpose of finding out as to whether the accused is required to be charged or not. 8. In ' State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu ’ , (2023) 6 SCC 768 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under: “ 56. The nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of charge came up for consideration of this Court in Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 507] , and referring to its earlier decisions in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [ (1996) 4 SCC 659 ], and State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [ (2000) 6 SCC 338 ] , it was held that at that stage, the Court has to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. The relevant observations made in the judgment are as follows : “11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.” 57. Then again in Som Nath Thapa [ (1996) 4 SCC 659 ] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, after noting the three pairs of sections i.e. (i) Sections 227 and 228 respectively insofar as the sessions trial is concerned; (ii) Sections 239 and 240 respectively relatable to the trial of warrant cases; and (iii) Sections 245(1) and (2) qua the trial of summons cases, which dealt with the question of framing of charge or discharge, stated thus : “32. … 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 for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution have to be accepted as true at that stage.” 58. In a later decision in Mohanlal Soni [ (2000) 6 SCC 338 ] , this Court, referring to several of its previous decisions, held that : “7. The crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. 59. The crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. 59. Reiterating a similar view in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P. [ (2013) 11 SCC 476 ], it was observed by this Court that while framing charges the court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record to decide whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence and it is not required to evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict the accused. It was held that the court at this stage cannot speculate into the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations and contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses cannot be looked into at the stage of discharge. 9. In Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand , (2023) 11 SCC 636, it has been observed as under: “ 27. It is a well-settled law that at the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing of charge the court must apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. Indeed, the court has limited scope of enquiry and has to see whether any prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. At the same time, the court is also not expected to mirror the prosecution story, but to consider the broad probabilities of the case, weight of prima facie evidence, documents produced and any basic infirmities, etc. In this regard the judgment of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] can be profitably referred for ready reference.” 10. In this regard the judgment of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] can be profitably referred for ready reference.” 10. In CBI v. Srinivas D. Sridhar , (2025) 1 SCC 378 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under: “ 19. After perusing the entire material and taking it as correct, perhaps the only material that creates suspicion is the speed with which the proposal of the Company was sanctioned. As far as the respondent is concerned, considering his position and the role ascribed to him in the grant of sanction to the loan proposal of the Company, mere suspicion against him is not enough to frame a charge against him. The proposal had passed through the Loan Advisory Committee which recommended the same. The proposal was placed before the respondent on 10-8-2010. As the credit proposal was beyond the sanctioning authority of the respondent, it was directed to be placed before the Managing Committee. Apart from the Loan Clearance Committee, the proposal was approved by the Bank's Chief General Manager (Credit). “ (emphasis added) 11. As per the mandate of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, at the stage of framing charge, the trial court can sift and weigh the evidence brought on record by the prosecution only for the limited purpose of finding out as to whether the prima facie case has been made out against the accused or not and at that stage, the probative value of the material placed on record by the prosecution cannot be looked into. The allegations levelled in the charge sheet must be supported by the statement of witnesses and other evidence brought on record warranting the framing of charge against the accused. Even grave suspicion is enough for framing of charge against the accused. Further, the court cannot speculate into the truthfulness or falsity of the prosecution case. 12. This Court has perused the statements made by PWs Birbal, Surinder Kumar, Shamsher Ali and Rakesh Kumar. Although it has been vehemently submitted by Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. Even grave suspicion is enough for framing of charge against the accused. Further, the court cannot speculate into the truthfulness or falsity of the prosecution case. 12. This Court has perused the statements made by PWs Birbal, Surinder Kumar, Shamsher Ali and Rakesh Kumar. Although it has been vehemently submitted by Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG that PWs Birbal and Surinder Kumar have deposed about the involvement of the petitioner, however, after perusing the statement of PW Balbir, it is found that he has nowhere deposed about the presence of the petitioner either at the time when the accused Deepu was released from the Police custody during the intervening night of 15/16 July 2017 and also at the time when the accused Deep Kumar arrived at the Police Post at 04.15 hours with blood stained Darat. PW Surinder Kumar has also not named the petitioner in his deposition. He too has made the statement in the same manner as made by the PW Birbal. The other two material witnesses are PWs Shamsher Ali and Rakesh Kumar, who both were posted as sentries at Police Post, Supwal. PW Shamsher Ali has stated that there were three accused in the custody, namely, Deep Kumar, Birbal and Surinder Kumar. In the night of 15.07.2017, SI Neeraj Kumar asked Munshi to tell the sentry to release the accused Deep Kumar and on the asking of his officer, he opened the gate of lockup and released the accused Deep Kumar. 13. PW Rakesh Kumar who was the other sentry posted at Police Post stated that he was on duty at 02.00 A.M. in the intervening night of 15/16 July 2017 and at that time, he enquired from the earlier sentry when he took over the charge and he stated that there were two accused persons, namely, Birbal and Surinder Kumar in the lockup and further stated that there were three accused in the lockup and one Deep Kumar was also lodged in the lockup. PW Shamsher Ali told him that on the asking of Munshi Kulbir Singh and Karyasahayak Amit Kumar, who in turn were asked by SI Neeraj Kumar to release the accused Deep Kumar, he was released from the custody. PW Shamsher Ali told him that on the asking of Munshi Kulbir Singh and Karyasahayak Amit Kumar, who in turn were asked by SI Neeraj Kumar to release the accused Deep Kumar, he was released from the custody. He has further stated that Head Constable Krishan Lal came to Police Post at 3.45 A.M. and at around 04.15 A.M. Deep Kumar came along with blood stained darat, which was taken over by the petitioner herein and handed over to SI Neeraj Kumar. Thereafter, the said darat was handed over to him. After three days, he was called by PSI Neeraj Kumar and was asked to wash the blood stained darat as he had completed all the formalities, as such, he washed the blood stained darat. 14. These are the only four witnesses, who are the material witnesses for the purpose of finding out as to whether there are any allegations against the petitioner herein, warranting his trial or not. From the statements of PWs Rakesh Kumar, Shamsher Ali, Birbal and Surinder Kumar, it is evident that the petitioner was not present at the time when the accused Deep Kumar was ordered to be released from the police custody by SI Neeraj Kumar and further statement of PW Rakesh Kumar has clearly established that the petitioner arrived at the Police Post at 03.45 A.M. and thereafter at around 04.15 A.M. accused Deep Kumar came to the Police Post with blood stained darat. 15. This Court is conscious of the fact that the evidence cannot be appreciated while considering the issue of charge/discharge, though the same can be looked into for the purpose of finding out as to whether there are allegations against the accused warranting the framing of charge and for that limited purpose only, this Court has examined the statements of above-mentioned witnesses. This Court has not come across any incriminating material warranting the framing of charge against the petitioner, as such, this Court is of the considered view that on the basis of material placed on record by the prosecution, the petitioner could not have been charged for commission of offences under Sections 307, 323, 193, 195-A, 212, 218, 225-A, 120-B RPC. 16. 16. This Court has examined the order impugned passed by the learned trial court and finds that the learned trial court has simply considered the issue of sanction and has not dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner and considered by this Court as mentioned above. 17. In view of what has been considered and stated above, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law qua the petitioner. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed and order dated 14.07.2022, by virtue of which the petitioner has been charged for commission of offences under Section 307, 323, 193, 195-A, 212, 218, 225-A, 120-B RPC in charge-sheet titled “UT of J&K vs. Deep Kumar @ Deepu and others”, is set aside. The petitioner is discharged and the challan is dismissed qua the petitioner. 18. Disposed of.