Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. dismissed a petition filed by the prosecution against the order of the trial judge whereby he declined to frame charge against the respondents in a criminal case.
The case was registered vide an FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 506 and 34 IPC. The case was investigated into and the charge sheet was filed wherein it was specifically mentioned that after investigation, the presence of the respondents was not established on the scene of that incident. However, respondents were arrayed solely on the basis of statement made by the father of the complainant. The trial court noted that the respondents were not found present at the spot during alleged incident and accordingly discharged the respondents from all offences under the FIR. Aggrieved thereby, the prosecution preferred the instant appeal.
The High Court, at the outset, observed it to be settled principle of law that the charge has to be framed not only on suspicion but grave suspicion of involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence. On perusal of the record, as also the fact that respondents were not named in FIR by the complainant and even investigation revealed that they were not present at the spot, the Court found no infirmity in the view taken by the trial court in discharging the respondents of all the offences. The Court was satisfied that there was no material on record to raise grave suspicion against the respondents of having committed the said offence. In view of the aforesaid, the petition was dismissed. [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Amit,2018 SCC OnLine Del 12076, dated 26-10-2018]
