Vikrant Rana Alias Shankar v. State Of Haryana And Another

   

            

 !"!

#$
%&% '()*(


















%%%    '+* *        %%% *  *

,$  -. ,% *  *   



  
  





  




////  * 0  %1 .2 




   

 

 !"

!# $!$%
 
 


 
'


( '
)  
*

+',
-&

 
' 

#!$

.  

+ 
 
&    



$


&
 


 





 


 

 

 

 
 
+  

( '
)   
 
/.0
)
#12

 !

$!$#
' 

#!"

#$1 .  

+ 

2$3


'4 &
56

"
*



 
8
$!$!,


 


9' 
  
 
 
 
 


 

9' 
'

: ''
;'
< 

-


  '
9' 
  4


-






 
+ 
8 
'  
'

'

''
;'
.
- 


/.0*' ,  
!"
  '


'

''
;'





 

'
 

' 

$!38
#!$
$!


#!2

.+

 
&



 

#!"

.+
 
&
 
 
/.0*' ,

#

< 
'





 
 
  
+'
 
 

 

&
 

 
' 

#!$ 
.  

+ 
& '



 

'
&

'
 



 
' 

''
;'

 

 



:-  

'

 


  & 


< 

+'
 


  

-
 

 
' 

#!$

.  


+ 




 

4'

 
' 










'

''
;'
-'
:-  

  
 '
-'


&
'

 


' 

#!$ 
.+


&



 


#!"

#$1

.+ "




   
'
 


 
 







&




'
 



  

 
 
 -


&
 :


&   '


 



&



'

& & 

 

 
&
 :

  




 
  
.


 

'

'

''
;'  


!"
 
 

-


' 


#!$

.+




'


 


-'

&

&



+'




 


 

%

.
 
 

 
'


 


' 
 
 
-

& 
  6.

The law on the issue with regard to the nature and degree of evaluation of the evidence presented by the investigating agency before the trial

3 Court at the time of framing of charge is well settled. The trial Court at this stage is only to form a presumptive opinion with regard to the existence of the factual ingredients breaching the threshold of the offence alleged. At the stage of formation of opinion under Section 227, 239 and 240 of Cr.P.C, the trial Court is not required to weigh the probative value of the material brought on record in the golden scale or to presume the prosecution story as gospel truth. The nature and degree of evaluation at this stage is limited to determine whether a prima facie case exists depending upon the facts of each case and as such, there is no requirement to go deep into the probative value of material on record.

The trial Court is only required to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. The adequacy and sufficiency of the evidence is not to be considered at this stage. The veracity of the evidence can only be evaluated during the trial. In view of the legal literature and judgmental law on this issue, it could be safely concluded that at the stage of forming an opinion under Section 227, 239 and 240 of Cr.P.C, the learned trial Court is required to evaluate the material only with a purpose to ascertain whether the facts emerging from the record if taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence.

The discharge of the accused is only permissible when the case set up by the investigating agency in the final report filed before the trial Court under 173 of Cr.P.C. has no basis or foundation. The trial Court cannot consider the probable defence of the accused in the case at this stage.

7.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in extenso laid down the principles for the purpose of framing of charges in P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala (2010) SCC 398. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the issue involved in the present case in State through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. R.Soundirarasu etc. 2023 (2) RCR Criminal 206 where a two Judge Bench,

& speaking through Justice J.B. Pardiwala, reiterated that the primary consideration at this stage of framing of charges is the test of existence of a prima facie case and the probative value of the material available on record is not to be gone into.

  


 
&
&




)
&
 &

&
' 
6
 


+'




 


+'

 -'
&
4'


& 


+'

    1 * 2 45!6
0














  *, =
 :>  (>) *, =
 &  (>)