JUDGMENT
D.P. Sengupta, J.
1. The present revisional application has been directed against an order dated 2.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Howrah thereby framing charge against the accused persons under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code in case No. S.T.-
II/ April/2001
2. A case was registered with Shibpur Police Station on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Shambhunath Ganguly reporting the commission of suicide by one Suhrid Ganguly. It was alleged in the First Information Report that the deceased Suhrid Ganguly had a telephone connection which had gone out of order. He informed the matter to the concerned Telephone Department. It was alleged that the two accused person, who have been described in the FIR as one Mr. Chakraborty (Lines man) and another person having beard of the Telephone Department, demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- illegally from the deceased Suhird for repairing the said Telephone connection. It was alleged that as the deceased refused to pay the said amount of money to the accused persons, they refused to repair the Telephone connection which was lying out of order for a considerable period. On the contrary they threatened the victim. The victim reported the matter to one Mr. Karmakar, who assured him to look into the matter. It was further alleged that being tortured by the Telephone Linesmen and in order to protest the illegal demand/bribe of the telephone employees, the victim committed suicide after writing a suicidal note.
3. The learned trial Judge by the impugned order framed charge under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and fixed the dates of recording evidence on and from 10.8.2001 to 16.8.2001. It is at this stage the petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the order of framing of charge.
4. It is the first contention of Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the allegation made in the first information report as also other materials collected by the investigating agency, do not make
out any offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In other words the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 are totally lacking in the present case.
5. The second contention of Mr. Mukherjee is that in the FIR no specific name of accused person was given and the accused were described by the informant as “one Mr. Chakraborty (Linesman) and another person having beard”. Mr. Mukherjee submits that no T.I parade was held for fixing up the identity of the accused persons. In absence of any such material, according to Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Judge was very much wrong in framing charge against the present petitioner.
6. So far as the first contention of Mr. Mukherjee is concerned, I am to accept the submission made by Mr. Mukherjee. Case diary has been produced before this Court. From the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.PC it is found that both the accused persons demanded bribe from the deceased for repairing the telephone line of the deceased. The deceased refused the pay the amount and on such refusal the accused directly threatened the victim and his mother. The victim, who was an engineer by profession, therafter committed suicide leaving a suicidal note directly implicating the two accused persons. In the suicidal note also the victim has stated that on refusal to pay the amount of bribe claimed by the accused, the accused persons threatened the victim and his mother and only for this reason the victim committed suicide. Having gone through the case diary I am of the considered view that there are prima facie materials which are sufficient for the purpose of framing of charge. In my view, it will not be proper at this stage to deprive the prosecution in proving its case on the basis of evidence, the statement of the deceased admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act and also other documents.
7. The second contention of Mr. Mukherjee regarding identification of the accused persons also cannot be accepted. In the FIR the accused persons have been described as “Linesman Mr. Chakraborty and another person having beard”. But from the statements of one Tarapada Saha, S.D.O, Exchange-660 and one Subhas Karmakar, J.T.O of the same Exchange, it is evident that the identity of those two accused persons could be fixed up by those two superior officers of the Telephone Exchange- The said two witnesses have specifically named the two accused persons in their statements. So, it cannot be said that the order of framing charge is bad in absence of proper identification of the accused persons.
8. The learned Advocate appearing for the complainant/opposite party No. 2 submits that prima facie materials are there in the present case, which are sufficient for the purpose of framing charge against the accused. Charge has been framed by the learned Judge after considering the materials on record and on proper application of mind. According to him there is no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned trial Judge framing charge against the accused persons.
9. The learned advocate of the complainant/op No. 3 relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court reported in 2001 AIR SCW 1230 (Smt Om Wati and Anr. v. The State). In the said Judgment it was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that at the initial stage of framing of charge the High Court should not interfere merely on hypothesis, imagination and far-fetched reasons.
10. The next Judgment relied upon by the learned advocate of the complainant/o.p. is reported in 2000 AIR-SCW-189 (S.B. Johori and Ors. v. State of M.P). In the said judgment it was held by the Hon’ble apex Court as follows:-
“In our view, it is apparent that the entire approach of the High Court is illegal and erroneous. From the reasons recorded by the High Court It appears that instead of considering the prima facie case, the High Court has appreciated and weighed the materials on record for coming to the conclusion that charge against the respondents could not have been framed. It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.”
11. I have heard the learned Advocate of the respective parties. In my considered view the order passed by the learned trial Judge framing charge under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code does not suffer from any illegality. The learned trial Judge after considering the materials or record and on being satisfied regarding the prima facie case framed charge against the accused. It is settled law that at this stage of framing of charge the Court has to prima facie consider whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed. It will not be proper for this Court to appreciate and weigh the materials on record to come to a conclusion that the charge framed against the accused is not proper.
12. In view of the discussion made above I am of the view that this is not a fit case for interference by this Court. The revisional application accordingly fails and the same is dismissed.
The learned trial Judge is directed to proceed with the trial and to
conclude the same with utmost expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.