The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of criminal appeals challenging the framing of charges against seven accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case, refusing to interfere with the trial court's decision to invoke provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain held that the prosecution material disclosed sufficient grounds for the trial to proceed and that the objections raised by the accused required examination during the trial.
Background
The appeals arose from the investigation into the murder of Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur. According to the prosecution, the incident was allegedly connected to social media posts in which the deceased had shared remarks made by Nupur Sharma during a television programme.
The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to commit the murder following threats linked to those social media posts. After investigation, the trial court framed charges under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, UAPA and Arms Act through orders dated January 12 and February 13, 2024.
The accused challenged these orders, arguing that the material collected during the investigation did not establish the essential ingredients of the UAPA offences.
The High Court emphasised that proceedings at the stage of framing charges are limited to determining whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists. The court is not expected to conduct a detailed assessment of evidence or determine guilt at this stage.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, the Bench reiterated:
"The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court."
The Bench further observed that allegations of conspiracy cannot be rejected merely because direct evidence of an agreement between the accused is unavailable. Such an agreement may be inferred from the cumulative circumstances surrounding an incident.
It also held that objections concerning recovered videos and the alleged absence of association with an unlawful organisation could not, by themselves, justify discharge without examining the prosecution material as a whole.
Finding no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the trial court's orders, the High Court dismissed both appeals and affirmed the orders framing charges.
The Bench clarified that its observations would not influence the trial court's independent assessment of evidence during the trial, which must proceed in accordance with law.
