Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for State with Mr. Santosh Kr. Gupta, Insp., PS-Kashmere Gate v. GOVINDA @ GOLU

Judgment

1. The present revision petition is directed against order on charge dated 27th October, 2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-02 (Central District), Tis Hazari Court in SC No. 211/2020, titled “State v. Govinda @

Golu”. These proceedings emanate from FIR No. 358/2019, registered at P.S. Kashmere Gate under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 18601.

2. The case of the Prosecution is that the deceased, Chander Shekhar, and the Respondent were acquainted with each other, having previously resided in the same neighbourhood and often engaged in playing cards together. On 8th December, 2019, the Respondent visited the deceased’s 1 “IPC” Signature Not Verified Dgitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:26.07.2025 17:10:46 CRL.REV.P. 393/2021 Page 1 of 8 dhaba to play cards, during which an altercation broke out after the deceased allegedly reprimanded him. Pursuant thereto, the deceased and the Respondent began physically assaulting each other by slapping and kicking. Later the same day, at around 5:00 p.m., another confrontation took place between the deceased and the Respondent near Bara Bazaar Road, in front of Tilak Gali, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, over a card game. This encounter, again reportedly over a card game, escalated into a fight during which the Respondent is alleged to have landed a forceful fist blow to the deceased’s head and kicked him in the stomach. The deceased collapsed at the scene and sustained serious injuries. He was rushed to the hospital but was declared brought dead. Based on these allegations, the present FIR was registered and the Respondent was arrested. Statements of eyewitnesses were recorded, a post-mortem examination was conducted, and a charge- sheet was filed against the Respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

3. Upon hearing arguments on the point of charge, the Trial Court, by the impugned order, framed a charge against the Respondent under Section 304(2) of the IPC, while discharging him of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the State has preferred the present revision petition challenging the framing of charge under the lesser provision and seeking restoration of the charge under Section 302 IPC.

4. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State, contends that the impugned order is founded on conjectures and surmise, inasmuch as the Trial Court discharged the Respondent for the offence under Section 302 IPC, without any substantive or factual basis. He argues that at this preliminary stage, the Signature Not Verified Dgitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:26.07.2025 17:10:46 CRL.REV.P. 393/2021 Page 2 of 8 Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the material produced by the prosecution, and that a meticulous evaluation of evidence or an assessment of probable defences is neither required nor permissible.

5. It is further submitted that the Respondent inflicted injuries on the deceased that were, by their very nature and severity, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The fact that the assault may not have been premeditated, it is urged, cannot by itself serve as a ground to exclude the application of Section 302 IPC. The absence of planning does not, per se, negate the presence of intent or knowledge required under Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC. Mr. Srivastava argues that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to evaluate the probative value of evidence or engage in a detailed scrutiny of competing versions. The Prosecution’s case, if taken at face value, discloses sufficient material to proceed under Section 302 IPC, and the Trial Court was obliged to consider the entirety of the record with judicial circumspection before altering the nature of the charge.

6. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. The legal principle that, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence or assess its probative worth is indeed well settled. What is required is the existence of a prima facie case based on the materials placed on record. However, it is equally well settled that while the final determination of guilt is not to be undertaken at the stage of charge; yet, the material on record and the facts emerging therefrom must be consistent and compatible with the charge sought to be framed. The test is whether the material on record, if accepted as true without any additions Signature Not Verified Dgitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:26.07.2025 17:10:46 CRL.REV.P. 393/2021 Page 3 of 8 or qualifications, is sufficient to ground the charge in law. The Supreme Court, in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh,2 discussed the principles to be considered by Courts at the stage of framing of charge or discharging an accused. The relevant observations made by the Supreme Court are as under: “4. ……. Reading the two provisions together in juxta position, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 or section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the, initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not.”

7. Further, the Supreme Court, in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Anr.,3 examined the scope of discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., and observed as follows: “227. 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