Kaniza Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand on 21 September, 2011

                  N THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI
                          Cr. Revision No. 640 of 2007

               Kaniza Khatoon       ...      ...   ...   Petitioner
                                          Versus
               The State of Jharkhand
               Md. Ehsan                                 Opp. Parties

           CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
                               ............

               For the Petitioner   : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Tiwari
               For the State        : Mr. A.P.P.
               For the O.P.No.-2      Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey

                                    ORDER

17/21.9.2011

This revision is directed against the order dated

15.03.2007 whereby application of petitioner under Section 227 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.

It is submitted by Sri Rajiv Ranjan Tiwari, learned counsel

for petitioner that learned court below has not considered evidence of

some independent witnesses, who stated before the police that

petitioner is not involved in the present crime. Thus court below had

committed serious illegality while passing the impugned order.

Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the

record of the case. Impugned order reveals that learned court below

after considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses at paragraph

nos. 9,11,12,13,15 and 16 of the original case diary had come to the

conclusion that prima-facie offence against petitioner under Sections

302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads
as under :- “Discharge- 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 no sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing”.

From perusal of aforesaid provision, it is clear that at the

stage of framing of charge, the Judge is require to see whether there

is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused or not. At that
stage Court is not required to make thorough enquiry and appreciate

evidence for coming to the conclusion as to whether evidence is

sufficient to convict the accused or not. That stage will come at the

time of conclusion of trial while delivering judgment. Under the said

circumstance, I find no illegality in the impugned order.

Thus I find no merit in this application. Same is

accordingly, dismissed.

(Prashant Kumar, J.)

Binit