Framing charge requires admissible material and strong suspicion; a barred police statement and co-accused statement alone are insufficient.

At the stage of framing charge, prosecution material must create a strong prima facie suspicion based on admissible evidence capable of going to trial. A police-recorded statement of the accused cannot be relied on where it is barred by law, and an admission made during investigation is likewise inadmissible. A co-accused's statement by itself is not sufficient to found a charge. Where the alleged recovery from the accused's residence is not established, no independent material remains to support the prosecution case at the charge stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the material relied upon by the prosecution disclosed a prima facie case for framing charge under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether the statement of the appellant recorded by the police, together with the statement of a co-accused, could sustain the prosecution at the stage of discharge under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: At the stage of framing charge, the court is required to see whether the material produced by the prosecution gives rise to a strong suspicion founded on material capable of being translated into evidence at trial. A mere suspicion, or a conclusion resting only on conjecture, is insufficient. The statement attributed to the appellant was recorded by the police during investigation and was therefore hit by the bar against use of police statements. A confession to a police officer is inadmissible, and even an admission contained in a statement made during investigation cannot be used in view of the statutory bar. Once that statement is excluded, the prosecution was left essentially with the statement of the co-accused. A co-accused's statement, by itself, cannot constitute the foundation for framing charge. The alleged recovery from the appellant's residence was also not established, and thus no independent material existed to generate the required strong suspicion.

Conclusion: The material on record was insufficient to justify proceeding against the appellant, and the charge could not be sustained on the basis of the co-accused's statement alone.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution against the appellant could not be maintained on the available material, and the order framing charge was set aside with the appellant discharged.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of charge, an accused can be proceeded against only on the basis of admissible material creating a strong prima facie suspicion; a police-recorded statement barred by law and a co-accused's statement alone cannot sustain the charge.

---