Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. - (1.)Petitioners -accused seek quashment of the order dated 18.01.2014 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur whereby accused have been put to trial for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 302/147/148/149/109 RPC. It is projected that the material collected during investigation does not, prima -facie, connect the Petitioners No. 2 to 10, in any manner, with the commission of offences whereas as against Petitioner No. 1, some material suggesting commission of offence punishable under Sec. 304 RPC is available.
(2.)The report based on which case has been registered as FIR No. 61/2013 P/S, Ramnagar was lodged by Mohammad Sharif alleging therein that he resides at Sunjawani Tehsil Kathua, however, during summer season he shifts to Seoj Dhar Tehsil Ramnagar along with his family members and cattle. On 26th May, 2013, when he along with his family was on way to Seoj Dhar, accused Lal Hussain, Rahim, Yousaf Ali, Mohammad Raju Shapai alias Shapaya sons of Jagoo, Din Mohammad S/o. Shafi residents of Dudu at present Keya Morha Khetriyan Tehsil Ramnagar, armed with Barshi and sticks, with criminal intention and common object, attacked them. Accused Rahim attacked Meherdin, son of the complainant, with Barshi who died on spot while as complainant and his daughters received many injuries. Investigation culminated in filing charge sheet (challan). Case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Udhampur. Finally, on hearing counsel for the accused as well as Public Prosecutor on the question of framing or otherwise of the charge, learned Sessions Judge, in terms of order impugned has framed the charge.
(3.)The trial before the Court of Sessions is governed by Chapter XXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The requirement of Ss. 268 and 269 Cr.P.C. is that the Court is required to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and then to hear the submissions, both of the accused as well as prosecution. If upon such consideration, in the opinion of the Judge there is no sufficient ground, then accused can be discharged for the reasons to be recorded but in case upon such consideration and hearing, learned Judge considers that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, then Court has to frame the charge. The word "ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence" has to be on the basis of the record and the material collected during the investigation.