YAMIN, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of two revision petitions. Both the revision petitions are against the same order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar dated 3. 11. 2000 by which he framed charges against the petitioners.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Dal Chand reported to police on 4. 6. 2000 at about 2. 05 a. m. that at about 10. 00 p. m. on 3. 6. 2000 he and Ratan Lal Home Guards were on patrolling duty in Alkapuri, Alwar. At about 12. 10 A. M. they heard noise and went to the spot. A person wearing blue T- shirt along with 5-6 other persons were given beatings to a man who was saved by these persons. In the meantime, a jeep from Kotwali came and the person wearing blue T-shirt was handed over. Other persons ran away. The person who was injured was lying there and he was bleeding profusely. He was taken to hospital. In the meantime, a jeep from Aravali Vihar Police Station came with whom the home guards officials went to hospital and came to know that the person who was injured had expired. A report No. 111/2000 was registered at Police Station Aravali Vihar, Alwar for offences U/ss. 147, 148, 149 & 302 IPC and after investigation, challan was submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioners and they have been falsely implicated. I went through the entire evidence with the help of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Of course, the first information report has been registered on the basis of report lodged by Dal Chand which mentions that the person who was being beaten by lathies was rescued by a man named Ratan Lal, Home Guard who was on patrolling duty and the person who was wearing blue T-shirt and other 5 persons were given beatings to the person who died in the hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that of course the person who was wearing blue T-shirt named as Mani Ram but the present petitioners are neither named by any of the witnesses nor any test identification parade was conducted during investigation in which they might have been identified as assailants. It has come in evidence that Shivlal was one of the persons who also took Sethji (Bala Prasad) on a scooter to hospital. Learned Public Prosecutor did agree that no test identification parade was conducted during investigation and the person who has wearing blue T-shirt was Mani Ram who was identified as such and was caught Dal Chand was stated that the person who was wearing blue T-shirt was made to sit in the police vehicle and when other persons saw the police vehicle, they ran away. He has further stated that the relations of the Sethji (Bala Prasad) took him to hospital. Ratan Lal is another official of the home guard and has stated that the person wearing blue T-shirt was caught. He has also stated that other persons ran away and could not be identified. It is Kishan Lal who stated that at about 12. 00 or 12. 30 a. m. when he heard the noise, he opened the shutter of his shop and found that Bala Prasad was bleeding profusely and Shivlal, his relation along with Rajesh and Raju took him to hospital. Another witness Soni alias Sohan Lal has stated that he was an employee at the shop of Bala Prasad and was sleeping on the fateful night. At about 10. 00 p. m. Bala Prasad had gone back home and he and his brother went to sleep in the shop at about 11. 30 p. m. At about 12' O clock somebody pushed the shutter and told that Mani Ram informed that Bala Prasad was injured. It was Shivlal who sent him to call Bala Prasad's son and then Bala Prasad was taken to hospital by Raju and Shivlal. On the basis of all the evidence, the police charge-sheeted both the petitioners and the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against which these revision petitions have been preferred.
(3.) NO doubt, in view of recent judgment of the Supreme Court in State by Central Bureau of Investigation vs. S. Bangarappa (1), it is not necessary that the reasons should not be given for framing of charge but charge has to be framed as per provisions of Section 228 Cr. P. C. Of course, Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also to be kept in mind. Section 227 Cr. P. C. provides that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing but he will frame the charge after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid if he is of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence as per provisions of Section 228 Cr. P. C. It means that there should be prima facie evidence against an accused. Of course, a charge can be framed on the basis of strong suspicion but there should be evidence to that effect. The last paragraph of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge states that there was evidence against the petitioners since they were present on the place of occurrence and that they had injured the deceased Chhotelal who has according to the post mortem suffered a lot of injuries. Admittedly, there is no test identification parade of any of these two accused persons. So far as petitioners are concerned, nobody saw them inflicting any injury to the deceased Chhotelal. Then there is no evidence that any test identification parade was conducted in which they could have been identified. The first information report mentions that the person wearing blue T-shirt and other 5-6 persons were giving beatings to the deceased by lathies. It was the person wearing blue T-shirt who was caught and handed over to the police. He is Mani Ram. Bala Prasad and Shivlal are the persons against whom no grave suspicion arises as they were not identified nor anybody named them. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. (2) has held that in exercising his jurisdiction u/sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before him as well as the basic infirmities appearing in the case but this does not mean that he should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence. In State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. (3), the Supreme Court had held that for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the court possesses comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. I find from the evidence on record that there is no such evidence which may connect the accused petitioners with the crime. I would like to quote Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration I have come to the conclusion that these revision petitions should be allowed. There is no evidence against these two accused petitioners raising grave suspicion so that they may be charged. Consequently, the revision petitions are allowed and the order framing charge qua these two accused petitioners is hereby quashed. . ;