The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that trial magistrates cannot frame charges against an accused without properly assessing the evidence on record. It emphasized that the presence of prima facie evidence linking the accused to the offending vehicle is necessary before proceeding under Section 304A IPC (causing death by negligence).
The case arose from an accident where a pedestrian died after being hit by a vehicle allegedly driven by the accused. However, the court found that no direct evidence established the accused’s connection to the vehicle involved in the accident.
Read Also: EWS Certificate Cannot Be Rejected Based On Mutation Records: J&K High Court
Court’s Observations
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while delivering the judgment, stated:
"If the material on record is accepted as it is, without being rebutted, it is not sufficient to presume that the accused has committed the offense, nor does it raise any grave suspicion regarding his involvement in the incident."
The court highlighted that the investigating agency failed to collect any substantial evidence proving that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. It also pointed out that a prosecution witness, who secured the vehicle’s release on behalf of the registered owner, did not confirm any link between the accused and the vehicle.
Additionally, the deceased’s brother stated that he had previously seen the accused driving the vehicle but not on the day of the accident. Other witnesses, including police officers and civilians, only relied on hearsay, making their testimonies inadmissible in court.
The High Court referred to multiple Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that a magistrate must assess the available evidence before framing charges. The court cited the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another (1979), where the Supreme Court held:
"A judge has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out."
Read Also: Delhi High Court Directs NIA Court to Speed Up MP Engineer Rashid’s Bail Decision in UAPA Case
It further referred to Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010), where the Supreme Court ruled that at the charge-framing stage:
"The court must consider whether the materials disclose grave suspicion against the accused. If the suspicion is not grave and merely raises doubts, the accused must be discharged."
Applying these principles, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court concluded that the trial magistrate erred in framing charges without substantive evidence linking the accused to the offense.
The Court’s Ruling
The court ruled that the charges framed by the trial magistrate were legally unsustainable and quashed them. It held that the accused could not be implicated solely based on hearsay and a police confession, which is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Background of the Case
The case involved a Swift Dzire vehicle allegedly driven by the accused, which fatally injured a pedestrian who later succumbed to his injuries. The driver fled the scene, leaving the vehicle at the accident spot. The police registered FIR No. 32/2020 under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A IPC at Gangyal Police Station, Jammu.
During the investigation, the police concluded that the accused was driving the vehicle and had confessed to the crime. The trial magistrate framed charges against him, which led to the petition challenging the order under Section 482 CrPC.
Read Also: J&K High Court Acquits Mohd. Shafi in 20-Year-Old Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence
APPEARANCE
Rajeev Chargotra, Advocate for petitioner
P. D. Singh, Dy. AG for Respondents
Case-title: Manohar Singh vs Union Territory of J&K
