2021 M L D 1532
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss.302(b) & 109---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-D---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---Discharge of accused by the Trial Court before framing of charge---Scope---Accused, a lady, was charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant---Trial Court discharged the accused without framing of charge against her---She was only nominated for abetment in the commission of offence---Scope---Record showed that initially no one was charged for commission of offence in the FIR, however, subsequently, the complainant/petitioner nominated the accused/respondent along with co-accused in his supplementary statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C, after three days of initial report---Available record reflected that no source of satisfaction qua involvement of accused/respondent in the commission of the offence had been disclosed by the petitioner/complainant---Even no independent person had been examined by Investigating Agency, in whose presence the entire conspiracy qua murder of deceased/husband of accused/respondent was planned by respondent with the co-accused (brother of deceased)---Co-accused had already been murdered by unknown accused and an FIR to that extant had also been registered in the concerned Police Station---No direct or circumstantial evidence was available against present accused/respondent, which could connect her with the commission of offence---One friend of co-accused was examined during investigation under S.161, Cr.P.C, who disclosed that his pistol was demanded by co-accused, which he, as per his instructions, handed over to the accused/respondent---Mere handing over of pistol to the accused/respondent was not sufficient to link her with the commission of offence, particularly when the said pistol had not been recovered by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation---Circumstances established that the conclusion so drawn by the Trial Court was in accordance with the spirit of S.265-D, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court had rightly discharged the accused from the groundless accusations, which were not sufficient to hold the accused guilty after carrying out a long and futile exercise of trial---Criminal revision petition was dismissed.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.265-D---Powers to examine record before framing of charge---Framing of charge is not an automatic process and the Trial Court is not supposed to act like a post office just to stamp on the ipse-dixit of police---If the material on record is not sufficient, then, the court may discharge the accused under S.265-D, Cr.P.C.2021 M L D 1532
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss.302(b) & 109---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-D---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---Discharge of accused by the Trial Court before framing of charge---Scope---Accused, a lady, was charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant---Trial Court discharged the accused without framing of charge against her---She was only nominated for abetment in the commission of offence---Scope---Record showed that initially no one was charged for commission of offence in the FIR, however, subsequently, the complainant/petitioner nominated the accused/respondent along with co-accused in his supplementary statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C, after three days of initial report---Available record reflected that no source of satisfaction qua involvement of accused/respondent in the commission of the offence had been disclosed by the petitioner/complainant---Even no independent person had been examined by Investigating Agency, in whose presence the entire conspiracy qua murder of deceased/husband of accused/respondent was planned by respondent with the co-accused (brother of deceased)---Co-accused had already been murdered by unknown accused and an FIR to that extant had also been registered in the concerned Police Station---No direct or circumstantial evidence was available against present accused/respondent, which could connect her with the commission of offence---One friend of co-accused was examined during investigation under S.161, Cr.P.C, who disclosed that his pistol was demanded by co-accused, which he, as per his instructions, handed over to the accused/respondent---Mere handing over of pistol to the accused/respondent was not sufficient to link her with the commission of offence, particularly when the said pistol had not been recovered by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation---Circumstances established that the conclusion so drawn by the Trial Court was in accordance with the spirit of S.265-D, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court had rightly discharged the accused from the groundless accusations, which were not sufficient to hold the accused guilty after carrying out a long and futile exercise of trial---Criminal revision petition was dismissed.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.265-D---Powers to examine record before framing of charge---Framing of charge is not an automatic process and the Trial Court is not supposed to act like a post office just to stamp on the ipse-dixit of police---If the material on record is not sufficient, then, the court may discharge the accused under S.265-D, Cr.P.C.
0 Comments