Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chowdaiah, was accused No.5 in Spl. C.C. No.73/2019 pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 363, 114, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to set aside the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Trial Court framing charges against him and consequently discharge him from the case. The petitioner argued that there was no material to connect him with the alleged offences and that the Trial Court erred in framing charges. The State opposed the petition, contending that there was sufficient material including the statement of a co-accused and recovery of a weapon at the instance of the petitioner. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that at the stage of framing of charges, only a prima facie case is required to be seen and not the sufficiency of evidence. The Court noted that the Trial Court had material before it which, if unrebutted, could lead to a conviction. The Court also observed that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the petitioner was aware of that fact, making out a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act. Consequently, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the Trial Court's order and dismissed the revision petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Framing of Charges - Discharge - Sections 397, 401 CrPC - The High Court in revision examined whether the Trial Court erred in framing charges against the petitioner/accused No.5 for murder and related offences - The Court held that at the stage of framing of charges, only a prima facie case is to be seen and not the sufficiency of evidence - The Trial Court had material including the statement of a co-accused and recovery of a weapon at the instance of the petitioner, which justified framing of charges - Revision dismissed (Paras 1-10). B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Offence under Section 3(2)(va) - Prima Facie Case - Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 - The petitioner was charged under the SC/ST Act for committing an offence against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe - The Court found that the victim was a member of a Scheduled Caste and the petitioner was aware of that fact, thus a prima facie case was made out - No interference warranted (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in framing charges against the petitioner/accused No.5 for offences under Sections 302, 201, 363, 114, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, and whether the petitioner is entitled to be discharged.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the Trial Court's order framing charges against the petitioner.
Law Points
- Framing of charges
- prima facie case
- discharge
- criminal revision
- Section 397 CrPC
- Section 401 CrPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Section 363 IPC
- Section 114 IPC
- Section 120B IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act
