Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the Courts while framing charge can sift through and weigh the evidences, for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out.

While allowing the appeal, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “In this case, on the basis of the facts noted above, we find that the charge should have been framed under Section 302 and not under Section 304 of the IPC, as was erroneously done by the trial court and subsequently affirmed by the High Court.”

Reliance was placed on Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey & Ors., (2022) 12 SCC 657 in this regard.

Court further added that, “We find it surprising that the chargesheet was filed invoking only Section 304 of the IPC, and that at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court also framed the charge only under Section 304 of the IPC. The trial court made a cursory observation that though the deceased had suffered 14 injuries, they were not inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon or firearm but by sticks, etc., and therefore, there is no prima facie basis for framing a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.”

Brief Background

Counsel for the appellant, Ayyub Ali, who also happened to be the father of the deceased, Ziyahur Rahman submitted that the case relates to honor killing wherein the deceased was attacked with sticks and rods – The intention was to commit murder, which was also clear from the number and nature of injuries as mentioned in the post mortem report.

In the chargesheet filed by the IO, charges were framed only under Section 304 of the Penal Code.

Appellant/Father of the deceased made an application to the ASJ, praying that the charges should be framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code instead.

It was emphasized by the appellant that the deceased was hit with sticks/rods and baseball bats, and at least six of the injuries were on soft parts of the body, including the head.

“Keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the manner in which the trial has proceeded, we direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to appoint a Special Prosecutor to conduct the trial, after consultation with the appellant, Ayyub Ali, the father of the deceased. The said exercise will be completed within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is served on the Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh. A compliance report to the aforesaid effect will be filed in this Court”, the Top Court further directed.

Case Title: Ayyub Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh