Mentioning of reason for framing the charges is not necessary

Sarthak Khandelwal | Kirit P. Mehta School Of Law, NMIMS University, Mumbai | 4th January 2020

BHAWNA BAI Vs. GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1820 OF 2019

Facts Of Case:

1. On 24.12.2015, the husband of the complainant-Gopal Saran at about 06.00 pm went saying to prepare food as he is going outside to for ploughing the land with tractor and that all the three consumed liquor together at the place of incident. and when he did not return even by 12.00 midnight, then his wife Bhawna Bai, appellant herein tried to contact him over his 1 mobile; but he did not receive the call. The appellant informed her father-in-law who tried to search the deceased and there was no information about the deceased. On the next morning at about 08.00 am, the appellant-complainant and her family members came to know from the neighbours that Gopal Saran was lying in the tank in the field of the first respondent Ghanshyam.
2. The appellant has alleged that when she tried to approach her husband then Ganesh s/o Mohanlal Kushwah prevented her going near her husband and locked her in a room and did not allow her to see her husband. The dead body of Gopal Saran was taken to government hospital. The appellant-complainant alleged that without informing her, post-mortem of her husband was conducted.
3. On 31.12.2015, the appellant made a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Khargaon and then also no case was registered.
4. Thereafter, the complainant-appellant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Kasrawad under Section 156(3) Crl.P.C. on 12.04.2016. The learned ACJM accepted the complaint and directed the Officer-inCharge, P.S. Kasrawad to register the FIR under Section 302 IPC and proceed with the investigation. FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Challenging the direction of ACJM to register an FIR, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleswar. The said revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.10.16.
5. Then the matter went to Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleswar and after listening to both sides founded that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and framed the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed revision before the High Court for the framed charges, the High Court quashed the charges on 25.02.19 by giving the reasoning that the trial court has failed to give reasoning while framing charges.

HELD:

1. The allegations in the charge sheet suggest that the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 had earlier quarrelled with 6 deceased Gopal Saran and thereby suggesting a motive for the crime. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen. The circumstances alleged by the prosecution indicate that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused.
2. Then the court referred to Amit Kapoor, in Dinesh Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another the Supreme Court held that for framing charge under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charges are framed.
3. The High Court was not right in interfering with the order of the trial court framing the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the High Court.and the order of the High Court is set aside. This Sessions Trial Case is restored and Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleswar, West Nimad, Madhya Pradesh shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 
4. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.