Md. Osman Goni and others Vs. The State, 3 LNJ (2014) 390

Case No: Criminal Revision No.1695 of 2005

Judge: Syed Md. Ziaul Karim,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Mrs. Sakila Rowshan,Mrs. Sharmina Haque,Mr. Md. Showardi,,

Citation: 3 LNJ (2014) 390

Case Year: 2014

Appellant: Md. Osman Goni and others

Respondent: The State

Subject: Criminal Trail,

Delivery Date: 2014-02-24

Md. Osman Goni and others Vs. The State
3 LNJ (2014) 390
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
 
Syed Md. Ziaul Karim, J.
            And
Ashish Ranjan Das, J.
 
Judgment on
24.02.2014
  Md. Osman goni and others
...Accused-Petitioner.
Versus
The State
. . . Respondent.
 
 
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 439
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Sections 302 and 201
Cognizance has been taken under the sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code. We have meticulously examined the allegations made by the informant and we find that the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Penal Code have been clearly disclosed in the instant case. We have gone through the grounds taken in the petition of Revision and we find that such grounds are absolutely the disputed question of facts and the same should be decided at trial. The plea of the petitioners are nothing but the defence plea. Be that as it may the proposition of law is now well settled that on the basis of defence plea or materials the criminal proceedings should not be stifled before trial; when there is a prima-facie case for going for trial. In view of such facts the grounds taken in the petition of revision is not the correct exposition of law. Moreso interruption of the course of Justice will set up a wrong precedent by which the course of justice instead of being advanced readily been stifled inasmuch as the grounds advanced before us are not correct or legal exposition of law. Therefore we hold that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners for going for trial under sections 302, 201 of the Penal Code. To that end in view we are at one with the learned Judge of the Court below regarding framing of charge against the petitioners. . . .(15)
 
No one appears,
. . .For the accused-petitioners.

Mrs. Sakila Rowshan, D.A.G. with
Mrs. Sharmina Haque, A.A.G. and
Mr. Md. Showardhi, A.A.G.
. . .For the State-opposite party.

Criminal Revision No.1695 of 2005
 
JUDGMENT
Syed Md. Ziaul Karim, J:
                       
By this Rule, the accused petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 30-09-2005 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Noakhali, framing charge under Sections 302,201 of the Penal Code against the accused petitioners in Session Case no. 38 of 2004.

Facts in brief are that on 10-02-1996 one Md. Jalaluddin as informant reported to the Companigong Police Station to the effect that his sister Maimuna Begum aged about eighteen years was married with accused petitioner no.1 Osman Goni and after marriage she was staying in her conjugal home. On 09-02-1996 at 8:00 a.m. he came to learn that his sister committed suicide by taking poison. He further alleged that her accused husband used to torture her for money and he had complicity for causing murder of his sister.

On receipt of such information Police recorded the same as unnatural death case no.01 dated 10-02-1996. The Police after investigation submitted final report in the said case.

Eventually, on the basis of a narajee petition filed by the informant the case was further investigated by the CID Police and according to its report Companigonj P.S. Case no. 04 dated 06-02-2003 under Section 306 of the Penal Code was recorded.

The Police investigated the case and ultimately submitted charge-sheet on 27-12-2003 under Section 306 of the Penal Code accusing the petitioners as accused. Thereafter the case was taken up by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial who by the impugned order dated 13-09-2005 framed charge under Sections 302, 201 of the Penal Code, against the accused.

Feeling aggrieved the petitioners preferred the instant application and obtained the present Rule.

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to support the Rule. In view of the facts, this is an old revision of 2005, we are inclined to take it up for disposal on merit considering the materials on record.

The learned Deputy Attorney General appearing for the State-opposite party opposes the Rule and submits that after considering the materials on record the learned Judge of the Court below rightly framed charge against the petitioners which calls for no interference by this Court.

In order to appreciate her submissions we have gone through the record and given our anxious consideration to her submissions.
 
We should bear in mind, credibility of testimony oral and circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. When dealing with the serious question of guilt or innocence of persons charged with crime, the following principles should be taken into consideration.
a) The onus of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused lies on the prosecutor.
b) The evidence must be such asto exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
c)  In matters of doubt it is safer to acquit than to condemn, for it is better that several guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person suffer.
d) There must be clear and unequivocal proof of the corpus delicit.
e) The hypothesis of delinquency should be consistent with all the facts proved.
 
Inspite of the presumption of truth attached to oral evidence under oath if the Court is not satisfied, the evidence inspite of oath is of no avail.

A "Charge" corresponds to an "indictment" in English Law and is very much more than a mere form. It is a precise formulation of specific accusation made against a person. Charge has to be framed on the basis of the material placed before the Trial Court and while doing so the Court is not bound by the inquiry report submitted under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in a Police challan case by the report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A charge is an important step in a criminal proceeding. It separates the inquiry stage from trial. The whole object of framing a charge is to enable the defence to concentrate its attention on the case that he has to meet, and if charge is framed in such a vague manner that the necessary ingredients of the offence with which the accused is convicted are not brought out in the charge, then the charge is defective. The framing of a proper charge is vital to a criminal trial and this is a matter on which the Magistrate or Judge should bestow the most careful attention. A charge should be carefully drawn up in accordance with the offence disclosed. The charge should be precise in its scope and particular in its details. A charge is defined as a ‘precise formulation of the specific accusation made against a person who is entitled to know its nature at the very earliest stage. The necessity of a system of written accusation specifying a definite criminal offence is the essence of criminal procedure.

The charge-sheet to which the accused is called upon to plead is a very important document. It should be drawn up and considered with extreme care and caution, so that accused may have no doubt whatever as to the offences to which he is called upon to answer and the Judge of the Appellate Court also may have no doubt upon the matter. The word ‘Ground’ means basis, foundation or valid reason. The whole object of framing a charge is to enable the defence to concentrate its attention on the case that he has to meet. Conditions for framing of a charge are (i) presumption of the commission of an offence on the materials before the Court and (ii) offences triable exclusively by a competent Court.

On going to the materials on record it transpires that the informant aswellas investigating authority categorically narrated the manner of causing death of the victim. The learned Judge after considering the entire materials on record rightly framed charge under Sections 302, 201 of the Penal Code against the petitioners. All that is required at the stage of framing charge is to see whether the prima-facie case regarding commission of certain offence is made out. The truth veracity and effect of evidence which prosecution proposes to adduce at the time is not to be meticulously judged at the stage of framing charge. In the instant case the accused stand indicted for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Penal Code. Cognizance has been taken under the said sections. We have meticulously examined the allegations made by the informant and we find that the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Penal Code have been clearly disclosed in the instant case. We have gone through the grounds taken in the petition of Revision and we find that such grounds are absolutely the disputed question of facts and the same should be decided at trial. The plea of the petitioners are nothing but the defence plea. Be that as it may the proposition of law is now well settled that on the basis of defence plea or materials the criminal proceedings should not be stifled before trial; when there is a prima-facie case for going for trial. In view of such facts the grounds taken in the petition of revision is not the correct exposition of law. Moreso interruption of the course of Justice will set up a wrong precedent by which the course of justice instead of being advanced readily been stifled inasmuchas the grounds advanced before us are not correct or legal exposition of law. Therefore we hold that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners for going for trial under sections 302, 201 of the Penal Code. To that end in view we are at one with the learned Judge of the Court below regarding framing of charge against the petitioners. In view of the above we failed to discover any merit in this Rule. Thus the Rule having no merit fails.

In view of foregoing narrative the Rule is discharged. The order or stay granted earlier stands vacated.

Office is directed to communicate the order at once.

Ed.