S.226 - 228 CrPC Meant To Ensure Expeditious Disposal Of Criminal Case, Parties Must Not Indulge In Dilatory Tactics: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has recently dismissed a revision petition seeking reconsideration of application filed by Petitioner-Accused under Section 227 CrPC for discharge from a murder and assault case.The Bench comprising Justice Samir Dave noted that the charge and framing of charge have been deferred time and again due to several applications moved by the petitioner along with co-accused...
The Gujarat High Court has recently dismissed a revision petition seeking reconsideration of application filed by Petitioner-Accused under Section 227 CrPC for discharge from a murder and assault case.
The Bench comprising Justice Samir Dave noted that the charge and framing of charge have been deferred time and again due to several applications moved by the petitioner along with co-accused which ultimately prolonged the trial. It observed,
"Present petition is nothing but a delaying tactic as the application seems to have been deferred on several occasions, whereas the co-accused seem to have been assassinating and languishing in the prison wherein the charge till date has not been framed or followed by the commencement of the trial due to several applications moved by the petitioner...The very purpose and the object of following the provisions of Sections 226 to 228 of the Cr.P.C. is to ensure the expeditious disposal of the Sessions Case so that the accused is discharged if there is not sufficient material against him or he can be tried quickly by following the due procedure laid down under Chapter-28 of the Cr.P.C."
The Court said that from the record that there is sufficient piece of evidence on the basis of which the guilt of the petitioner can be proved. It went on to observe that the standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 or section 228 of the Code.
The Petitioner herein was accused of offences u/s 302, 307, 323, 324, 506(2), 504, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 120B and 34 of IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The Prosecution claimed that a scuffle took place amongst the caste members of the Petitioner before the police in a meeting and therefore, several members had sustained injuries while two individuals passed away. The Petitioner was arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail.
The Petitioner's primary contention in the Revision Application before the Trial Court was that no procedure under Section 226 of CrPC was followed by the Prosecution. The Prosecution, per contra, averred that they had placed sufficient reliance on all documents. The Trial Court dismissed the Petitioner's application seeking discharge from the trial basis the documentary evidence.
The Petitioner challenged this order before the instant Bench on the ground that there was no material against him and he was only arraigned because of his presence at the scene. Under Sec 227 if there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against an Accused person, the person deserves a discharge. The APP, however, insisted that documentary material along with the charge-sheet showed that the Petitioner had committed the offence for which he was supposed to be tried.
Justice Dave noted that the Petitioner had frequently tried to move several applications to prolong the trial. Further, there was sufficient evidence regarding the Petitioner's statement and conduct to deserve a trial. Justice Dave referred to State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh to reiterate:
"If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the, trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But, if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under section 227 or section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under section 228 (framing of charge) and not under section 227."
The High Court relied on State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa to emphasise the definition of 'presume' and concluded that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the commission of the offence is probable, then framing of charges is required.
Keeping in view these decisions, the High Court found that the Trial Court's decision did not suffer from illegality and was entitled to be upheld.
Case No.: R/CR.RA/630/2022
Case Title: GOPALBHAI NARANBHAI @ NARUBHAI BHAGUBHAI RATADIYA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 297
Click Here To Read/Download Order