A division bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain has upheld the framing of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 against eight accused persons in connection with the 2022 murder of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal. The bench dismissed two appeals challenging the trial court's order, holding that the stage of framing charges does not warrant a mini-trail or a meticulous evaluation of evidence.
The trial court had framed charges against the appellants under the Indian Penal Code, the UAPA, and the Arms Act, 1959. The accused contended before the High Court that the invocation of UAPA provisions constituted a manifest error and a misapplication of mind. Specifically, counsel for the accused argued that the recovered videos did not contain any words or expressions tending to disturb public tranquillity. It was further submitted that the First Information Report lacked specific averments indicating that threats were directed against any particular person, community, caste, or religion. Additionally, the defence asserted that no material on record established the association of the accused with any unlawful organisation or that the alleged acts were committed in furtherance of such an organisation's activities.
The prosecution opposed the appeals, submitting that the accused had allegedly conspired to murder the deceased over certain remarks made by Nupur Sharma during a television programme. The prosecution alleged that the deceased had shared and forwarded those remarks on social media, which provoked the accused to act in furtherance of a common intention. It was further stated that the incident was preceded by threats and was intended to hurt religious sentiments and disturb communal harmony.
What is the evidentiary threshold for framing charges under UAPA?
At the charge-framing stage, the court is required to ascertain whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case or grave suspicion, not to conduct a mini-trial or determine ultimate guilt or innocence.
Addressing the submissions, the bench observed that the court's function at this juncture is limited to determining whether the prosecution material gives rise to a prima facie case or grave suspicion. The bench stated that interfering at this stage would amount to an unwarranted pre-emption of the prosecution proceedings. The court held that the contentions raised by the appellants pertained to the appreciation and evaluation of evidence, which are matters strictly reserved for trial.
On the specific objection regarding the absence of direct evidence of conspiracy, the bench ruled that such absence is not decisive. The court noted that an agreement constituting conspiracy may be inferred from the cumulative effect of circumstances, citing precedents including State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, Firozudden Basheeruddin and ors. v. State of Kerala, and Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab. The bench further held that the allegations of conspiracy and the surrounding circumstances must be appreciated in their entirety. Consequently, the court found no compelling ground warranting interference with the impugned orders framing charges against the appellants.
Stage of Proceeding | Judicial Function | Standard of Scrutiny |
|---|---|---|
Framing of Charges | Ascertain prima facie case or grave suspicion | No mini-trial; no meticulous evaluation of evidence |
Trial | Appreciation and evaluation of evidence | Determine ultimate guilt or innocence |
The High Court's decision reinforces the principle that objections concerning the evidentiary value of recovered materials, the specificity of allegations in the FIR, and the organisational affiliation of the accused are not conclusive grounds for discharge at the preliminary stage. The matter will now proceed to trial before the competent court.