Revision Petition Dismissed Against Charges Framed Under Section 306 IPC; Court Emphasizes Role of Presumption at Charge Framing Stage
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, under the bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra, dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Ashok Singh @ Kali Singh, challenging the framing of charges against him under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged abetment of his brother's suicide. The court upheld the orders dated 22.10.2021 and 24.01.2024, passed by the trial court, which had taken cognizance and framed charges respectively.
The case stemmed from the suicide of Deen Dayal Singh, whose body was discovered with a suicide note alleging harassment by the petitioner and his father. The trial court, having considered the evidence, particularly the suicide note and supporting witness statements, framed charges against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC, leading to this revision petition.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the ingredients of abetment, as defined under Section 107 IPC, were not met and questioned the reliability of the suicide note, suggesting it was fabricated posthumously by the prosecution. It was also contended that the forensic evidence was insufficient to establish the deceased’s handwriting on the suicide note.
However, the court, citing precedents, emphasized the principle that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to conduct a detailed inquiry akin to a trial. Instead, it must assess whether there is a prima facie case or strong suspicion against the accused. The court noted that the framing of charges can proceed on the basis of presumption, without the need for concrete proof of guilt, which is to be established during the trial.
Justice Shailendra, while acknowledging the discrepancies pointed out by the petitioner, such as the date of cognizance and the forensic report’s limitations, concluded that these were not sufficient grounds to quash the charges at this stage. The court reiterated that detailed examination of evidence is reserved for the trial and the presumption of the accused’s involvement was adequate for proceeding with the charges.
The court also addressed the petitioner’s reference to contradictory reports on handwriting and signatures, stating that such contradictions do not invalidate the suicide note at the stage of framing charges. The judgment clarified that the trial court would delve into these aspects during the trial phase.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision petition, underscoring the principle that at the charge framing stage, the judiciary's role is to determine the existence of a prima facie case rather than evaluating the evidence to a degree required for conviction or acquittal.
Bottom Line:
Framing of charge under Section 306 IPC justified when there exists prima facie evidence or strong suspicion indicating involvement of the accused in abetting the suicide.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 306, Section 107; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 227, 228
Ashok Singh @ Kali Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2833846
