The Delhi High Court has upheld the charge of murder framed against a man who fired a bullet from his pistol during a barat procession which resulted in the death of an onlooker standing on a nearby roof. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to the framing of charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and said that the murder case was based on the material on record and the deceased person’s father’s statement who claimed to have seen the accused firing after wiping out his pistol, one of which hit his son.
The judge said that the question of motive and intention would be seen during the course of the trial and clarified that at the present stage, only a prima facie view is to be taken to arrive at the conclusion that the commission of the offence is a probable consequence. “While deciding the question of framing of charge in a criminal case, the court is not to apply exactly the standard and test which it finally applies for determining the guilt otherwise. What is required to be seen is whether there is strong suspicion which may lead to the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence,” the court said in its recent order. “In the present case, the perusal of the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 showed that the Ld. ASJ (additional session judge) has framed the charge on the basis of the material as placed on record by the prosecution and the statement of the eye witness who is the father of the deceased who has stated in his statement that it was the petitioner/revisionist who after wiping out his pistol started firing and fired one gunshot towards his son,” it added.
As per the complaint filed in the case, one bullet had hit the deceased on the right side of his chest as he watched the wedding procession from the rooftop. He thereafter fell down and was taken to the hospital, it was stated. The prosecution defended the murder charge against the petitioner and informed that the pistol used for firing was an un-licensed weapon. It stated that whatever defence the petitioner wanted to take could be taken by him during the course of the trial.