The Rajasthan High Court has refused to interfere with the framing of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), against eight accused in the 2022 murder of Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal, observing that the absence of direct evidence establishing a conspiracy cannot, by itself, justify discharge.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain held that courts, while examining a challenge to the framing of charges, are not expected to conduct a mini-trial or undertake a detailed assessment of the evidentiary material. The relevant consideration at this stage is whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case or raises grave suspicion against the accused.
The Bench observed that the objections raised by the accused primarily concern the appreciation and evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation, issues that must be examined in the course of trial.
Addressing the accused’s contention that there was no direct evidence demonstrating an agreement to commit the alleged offence, the High Court observed that criminal conspiracy can be established through circumstantial evidence.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, Firozudden Basheeruddin v. State of Kerala and Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, the Bench emphasised that the existence of a conspiracy can be inferred from the cumulative effect of surrounding circumstances.
The Court held that the prosecution’s allegations and the circumstances preceding the incident must be considered collectively rather than in isolation.
It further observed that determining the evidentiary worth of the material at the stage of framing charges would amount to prematurely evaluating matters reserved for trial.
The High Court was hearing two appeals filed by the accused challenging the trial court’s orders framing charges under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the UAPA and the Arms Act, 1959.
The appellants contended that invoking the stringent anti-terror law was legally unsustainable and reflected an erroneous application of mind by the trial court.
Their counsel argued that the videos recovered during the investigation did not contain any specific words or expressions capable of disturbing public tranquillity or threatening social harmony. It was also submitted that the FIR did not disclose any specific threat directed towards a particular individual, community, caste or religion.
Another ground of challenge was that there was no material demonstrating the accused’s membership of an unlawful organisation or establishing that their alleged activities were undertaken in furtherance of such an organisation.
Opposing the appeals, the prosecution maintained that Section 18 of the UAPA encompasses not merely the commission of a terrorist act but also conspiracy, attempts, abetment and preparatory activities connected with such an offence.
It argued that the circumstances preceding the murder, the alleged threats, the conduct attributed to the accused and the material recovered during investigation had to be examined together to determine the existence of a conspiracy.
The prosecution further submitted that the contents of the recovered videos could not be assessed merely by identifying the presence or absence of particular expressions. Their context, manner of circulation and alleged connection with the crime required a comprehensive evidentiary examination during trial.
It also maintained that the question of whether the material ultimately establishes the ingredients of the offences under the UAPA could only be determined after evidence was led.
Rejecting the appellants’ objections, the High Court reiterated that the exercise undertaken at the stage of framing charges is limited to examining whether the material on record gives rise to a prima facie case or grave suspicion.
The Bench held that the objections concerning the recovered videos, the absence of specific expressions allegedly affecting public tranquillity and the claimed lack of association with an unlawful organisation could not be treated as conclusive grounds for discharge without examining the prosecution’s case in its entirety.
It cautioned that interfering with the trial court’s decision at this stage would amount to an unwarranted pre-emption of the prosecution proceedings.
Finding no sufficient ground to interfere with the orders framing charges, the High Court dismissed both appeals.
The post Kanhaiya Lal murder case: Rajasthan High Court upholds UAPA charges against eight accused, says conspiracy can be inferred from circumstances appeared first on India Legal.