Prima facie test at charge framing bars evidence weighing; Supreme Court restored murder and electricity charges.

At the stage of framing of charges, the court must confine itself to a prima facie assessment and cannot reject prosecution material by weighing its credibility or improbability as if at trial. Here, eyewitness statements, along with burn injuries on the body, were sufficient to support the prosecution version of direct contact with a live wire. The High Court erred in treating the material as inherently absurd and in quashing the charges. The Trial Court's charges under Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act were restored, and the trial was directed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing charges under Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code at the stage of framing of charges by assessing the improbability of the prosecution evidence.

Analysis: At the stage of framing of charges, the court is not to weigh the evidence as if conducting a trial. The material then available only has to be seen for the existence of a prima facie case. The eyewitness statements, coupled with the presence of burn injuries on the body, were sufficient to indicate direct contact with the live wire and to support the prosecution version. The High Court therefore erred in treating the statements as inherently absurd and in substituting its own assessment of the evidence for a trial-based evaluation.

Conclusion: The High Court's order quashing the charges could not be sustained. The charges framed by the Trial Court under Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act were restored, and the trial was directed to proceed accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing of charges, the court must confine itself to a prima facie assessment and cannot reject prosecution material by weighing its improbability or credibility as if deciding the case on merits.

---