Eye-witness testimony prevails over electronic evidence for cognizance and framing of charges despite police closure report.

The petitioners were named in an FIR (Crime No. 171/2020) at Police Station Sendri for forming an unlawful assembly and murdering Sunil Tiwari with deadly weapons

While a charge-sheet was filed against other accused, the police continued the investigation against the petitioners under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and eventually filed a closure report citing CCTV footage and mobile tower records suggesting their absence from the scene

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) rejected the closure report on 19.02.2021, took cognizance based on eye-witness statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and issued process

Subsequently, the Sessions Court framed charges under Sections 148, 302/149 of the IPC on 27.10.2023

The petitioners challenged these orders, arguing that the investigating agency found no material against them and that co-accused persons had already been acquitted in a separate trial

1. Whether the Magistrate and Sessions Court erred in rejecting the police closure report and framing charges despite scientific evidence suggesting the absence of the accused

2. Whether the acquittal of co-accused in a separate trial entitles the remaining accused to quashing of proceedings or discharge

The court applied the principle that the opinion of an investigating agency in a closure report is not binding on a Magistrate, who may independently take cognizance if sufficient grounds exist

At the stage of framing charges, the Court must only determine if there is a "strong suspicion" of involvement rather than a meticulous appreciation of evidence

Principles from Dharam Pal and Others v. State of Haryana and Another (2014) 3 SCC 306 were cited regarding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance despite a closure report

Furthermore, the court emphasized the limited scope of inherent and revisional jurisdictions under Sections 482 and 397/401 Cr.P.C., which cannot be used to conduct a "mini-trial"

The High Court observed that the petitioners were specifically named in the FIR and consistently implicated by eye-witnesses in statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

The court reasoned that the scientific evidence relied upon by the petitioners (CCTV and mobile tower data) is a matter of defense to be evaluated during trial, as its authenticity and evidentiary value cannot be adjudicated at the stage of framing charges or quashing

The court further noted that the JMFC and the Sessions Judge provided valid reasons for proceeding based on the material in the case diary

It was held that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically result in the discharge of the petitioners when prima facie material exists against them

The court answered that the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses justified the rejection of the closure report and the framing of charges

The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial uninfluenced by the observations made in this order