STATE Vs. ASSAD SOFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This is a Revision filed against an order passed by Sessions Judge Budgam on 29-11-1996, whereunder accused named Ahad Sofi, Assad Sofi and Rahim Sofi have been charged of Section 304, Part-II and thus discharged from Section 302 of RPC. So far accused Mohd Sofi is concerned he has been discharged. The prosecution story in brief is that on fateful day of occurrence the accused after forming an un-lawful assembly assaulted the deceased Mohd Sofi. He received a fatal blow from accused Assad Sofi. He was hospitalised. After a duration of seven days he succumbed to his head injury sustained by the blow. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties seems to have been noseled by some authorities, reproduced at page 3 of the order and thus held that the death was caused by a "Single blow" on the spur of moment", without there being any pre-meditation" and holds the act to be the outcome of sudden impulsive provocation. Interestingly the trial Court has held as under :-

(2.) Thus the trial Court proceeds to charge the three accused informs of 304-II, RPC and discharges the accused No. 4. I want to place on record my disappointment in respect of the manner and method in which this important case has been handled and that also by one of the senior most District and Session's Judge. I wish he could have noticed the stage at which he was passing the order. The observations made by the Presiding Officer in the impugned order give an impression as if he was deciding the case finally. Under Section 268 read with 269, Cr. P. C., the Court of Session was required to consider the record of the case and documents submitted there with. He had to hear the accused and the prosecution and if such consideration and hearing would lead the Sessions Judge to the belief, that no sufficient ground for containing the proceeding against the accused existed. He could discharge the accused, but while doing so, he had to record reasons. However, if after such consideration and hearing, the Judge would be of the opinion that there was ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence, then he would proceed interms of Section 269 of the Code and frame charge.

(3.) The question that arises here is as to what is meant by sufficient ground here, needs to be viewed from the following perspectives :-