1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 178 of 2022 1 - Atul Shukla S/o Sudama Shukla Aged About 49 Years R/o Green Park Colony, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Line, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vicky Pandey S/o Gopal Pandey Aged About 21 Years R/o Sakri Bazar Para, Police Station Sakri, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vipin Vishwakarama @ Bittu S/o Arun Vishwakarma Aged About 22 Years R/o Sakri, Bajarpara, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Amar Sahu S/o Shiv Kumar Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Sakri Kumharpara, Police Station Sakri, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Tapas Agrawal S/o Santosh Agrawal Aged About 42 Years R/o Bharatiya Nagar Gali No. 4, Police Station Civil Line, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 10.03.2025 1. The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 16.11.2021, passed by 8th additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in criminal session trial No. 58/2021 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Atul Shukla & ors.) whereby the charges for the offences under Section 341 read with Section 147 of Indian HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.05.24 10:27:06 +0530 2 Penal Code and Section 307 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 have been framed. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 18/06/2019 at 20:05 PM the first information report of the incident was lodged by the complainant P.K. Panchayati inter alia on the allegation that at about 08:00 am to 08:30 am in the morning while the complainant was cycling on the Gaurav path and when he was reaching towards the Haribhoomi Press, three unknown persons came through motorcycle and two to three times they tried to dash the complainant from the bike due to which the complainant advised them to drive carefully, later these three unknown persons were waiting for complainant near the Vasundhara Nagar turning, where these three persons wilfully obstructed the way of the complainant and started giving life threats to him and for no reasons they started beating the complainant with wooden rod on his face and head and therefore caused grievous hurt to the complainant. The complainant has further averred in the first information report that out of those three persons one was wearing blue colour t-shirt and that he can identify them if brought before him. 3. After examining the material available on record learned trial Judge framed the charges against the accused-applicant and other 5 accused persons by the order impugned. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if the entire material collected by the prosecution is seen, by no stretch of imagination the offence under Sections 149, 147, 307 and 341 of IPC is made out against the present applicant. He further submits that under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., learned Judge is not required to shift the evidence and while framing the charges the scope of dealing with the evidence is very limited but in this case learned trial 3 Judge has dealt with the material at a considerable length. He further submits that it is a settled legal position that if the material collected by the prosecution gives rise to two possible views, the one favouring the accused-applicant has to be given the preferential treatment. He submits that if the entire material brought forth by the prosecution is taken a close look, there is no likelihood that its a lead to conviction of the accused-applicant in the long run and considering all these aspects of the matter, the charges framed against the accused-applicant by the order impugned may be set aside by allowing the present revision. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/State supports that order framing the charges against the accused-applicant and submits that if the applicant is innocent, he can prove the same in the course of trial and at this stage the order impugned is not required to be disturbed. Even the Supreme Court has time and again has held that if the involvement of the accused- applicant appears to be there even on the face of the record, ordinarily the order framing charges should not be interfered with. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,. 7. At this stage it would be expedient to notice the judgment of the Hon’ble Suprme Court in case of Union of India (UoI) Vs. Prafull Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 wherein it has been held as under:- “8.The scope of Section 227 of the Code was considered by a recent decision of this Court in the case of State Of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39, (1978) 1 SCR 257 where Untwalia, J., speaking for the Court observed as follows: "Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that 4 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. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross- examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence. then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial." This Court has thus held that whereas strong suspicion may not take the place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it may be sufficient for the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge in order to frame a charge against the accused. Even under the Code of 1898 this Court has held that a committing Magistrate had ample powers to weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a case of commitment to the Sessions Judge has been made out.” “9. In the case of K.P Raghavan v. M.H Abbas AIR 1967 SC 740, (1967) 2 SCJ 415, 1967 Cri LJ 653 this Court observed as follows: "No doubt a Magistrate enquiring into a case under Section 209 CrPC is not to act as a mere Post Office, and has to come to a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for commitment of the accused to the Court of Session.” To the same effect is the later decision of this Court in the case of Almohan Dus v. State of West Bengal AIR 1970 SC 863. (1969) 2SCR 520, (1970) Cr LJ 860 where Shah, J., speaking for the Court observed as follows: "A Magistrate holding an enquiry is not intended to act merely as a recording machine. He is entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record, but only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment, and not whether there is 5 sufficient evidence for conviction. If there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is his duty to discharge the accused: if there is some evidence on which a conviction may reason-ably be based, he must commit the case." In the aforesaid case this Court was considering the scope and ambit of Section 209 of the Code of 1898.” 8. It is also settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned trial Court is not needed to appreciate the evidence and form the material available in the charge-sheet prima facie case is made out, charges be farmed. No roving inquiry to test the veracity of evidence is needed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashish Chadha Vs. Ashakumari and another, (2012) 1 SCC 680 in paragraph 20 held as under:- “20.The High Court has in its revisional jurisdiction appraised the evidence which it could not have done. It is the trial court which has to decide whether evidence on record is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused so as to frame charge against him. Pertinently, even the trial court cannot conduct roving and fishing inquiry into the evidence. It has only to consider whether the evidence collected by the prosecution discloses prima facie case against the accused or not.” 9. Taking clue from the above judgments, this Court is of the considered view that from the material available on record it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed jurisdictional error or illegality while framing the charge. 10. Revision thus fails and dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari