Brief Facts
- The present appeal was filed against the order of charge wherein the Ld. Trial Court framed the charges under section Section 341, 323, 325, 307, 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (s), 3(ii)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act against the Appellants.
- The victim suffered a skull injury and was treated at a private hospital and on basis of these reports, an opinion was procured from Medical Officer, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu and Section 307 IPC was added by the police who filed a charge-sheet under Section 341, 323, 325, 307, 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (s), 3(ii)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
Issues
- What is the role and duty of the Trial Court at the time of framing charges/discharging the accused persons?
- Whether medical records and treatment documents issued by a private hospital can be considered valid medico-legal evidence for the purpose of framing charges, particularly under Section 307 IPC?
- Whether statements of family members or close relatives of the injured can form the basis for framing charges, or whether such witnesses can be discarded at the charge stage on the ground of being “interested witnesses”?
Held
- he High Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the order of charge after considering the limited scope interference at the stage of charge and the prima facie material available against the Appellants. The findings of the Court are as under:
- Having considered the entire material on record, it is apparent that the injured has sustained grievous and life-threatening injury on vital part of the body. Moreover, the injured belongs to SC community, so provision SC/ST (POA) Act is applicable. The evidence on record is sufficient to frame a charge and the involvement and applicability of Section 34 is subject matter of trial. All the three appellants were named in FIR and explained their role and involvement by witnesses in their statements, therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error while framing the charge against the appellants.
Scope of enquiry at the stage of framing of charge
- After filing of charge-sheet when the matter is taken-up by Special Court for consideration of material forwarded by police then firstly duty lies upon the Trial Court to consider application of discharge as provided under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. (Now Section 250 of BNSS) and after considering record and documents and hearing the submission of both the parties, if the Court finds that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused then the Court may discharge the accused. The aim is to ensure that an innocent person or where there is not sufficient evidence not subjected to a lengthy trial as provided under the Cr.P.C. or B.N.S.S.
- The trial court while dealing with an application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. (State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Vs. M. R. Hiremath : (2019) 7 SCC 515)
Treatment at government hospital not necessary
- This issue was raised before learned Trial Court and in impugned order the basic purpose of any criminal justice system was considered, which is not to punish victim or injured. In case, any one suffered injuries due to act of another person then no provision of law prescribe that the injured should be treated at any Government hospital or at Government facility. Similarly, there is no law which provides that if any injured is treated or undergone treatment in any private hospital then record of private hospital may not be considered for medico legal purpose. The only question is authenticity of record for treatment and nature of injuries sustained by injured but all these aspects are subject matter of trial, therefore, no objection can be raised at the stage of charge.
Family members can be witnesses
- If any injury is caused by any person or group of persons and only family members or close relatives have witnessed the incident then they are competent witnesses. The law in our country does not prescribes any special qualification for witness, therefore, objection like interested witnesses at this stage of charge is impermissible.
Relevant Para No.
- 10, 11, 12, 16 and 18