S.227 CrPC | Accused Must Be Discharged In Absence Of 'Grave Suspicion': Orissa High Court

While allowing the revision against a lower Court's order, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,

"To further explain, suspicion per se may be entirely in the realm of speculation or imagination and may also be without any basis, whereas grave suspicion is something which arises on the basis of some acceptable material or evidence. Only because there is no other explanation for the alleged occurrence, the needle of suspicion should point at the accused cannot be a reasonable basis to proceed with the trial against him."

Factual Background:

The FIR was lodged by the complainant alleging that her daughter (the deceased) was living with one Nihar Ranjan Pradhan (Pintu) since 2006. Both of them were committing crimes and had been jailed on some occasions. The present petitioner happens to be the advocate of Nihar and the deceased. It was alleged that taking advantage of the imprisonment of Nihar, the petitioner secretly married the deceased and kept her as his wife in a house.

It was further alleged that the deceased insisted that the said marriage should be solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner had assured to do so, yet could not comply with the same. As a result of which, the deceased committed suicide. Basing on such allegations, a case was registered under Sections 493/417/306 of IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 493/417/406/306 of IPC and cognizance was taken of the said offences. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Session for trial and is pending in the Court learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack.

The petitioner-accused filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in the Court below with a prayer to discharge him from the offences mainly on the ground that the essential ingredients of the same do not exist. The Court below after taking into consideration the settled position of law and the allegations made in the FIR, held that in so far as the offence under Section 406 of IPC is concerned, there is absolutely no material on record to proceed against the accused and accordingly discharged him from the said offence. However, it was held that the materials on record, prima facie, satisfy the allegations against the accused under Section 493/417/306 of IPC. The said order was challenged in the present revision petition.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

Mr. S.S. Das, Senior Counsel for the revisionist/petitioner submitted that criminal prosecution being a serious matter affecting the liberty of a person, can be allowed to proceed only if there are sufficient materials on record justifying the same. Referring to the allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it was argued that the prosecution case, even if accepted on its face value, does not in any manner establish the offences alleged.

He placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Ors., (1979) 3 SCC 4, wherein it was held that the Court while framing charge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. must find out whether or not prima face case against accused had been made out and whether such materials disclose grave suspicion against the accused. He further stressed that mere suspicion cannot justify continuance of a criminal proceeding.

Contentions of the Respondent:

Contrary to the submission on behalf of the revisionist, Mr. A. Pradhan, Additional Standing Counsel for the State submitted that facts of the present case clearly reveal that there are sufficient materials before the Court to presume that the offences under Sections 493/417/306 of IPC were committed by the accused and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

Observations and Ruling of the Court:

The Court relied upon Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) to hold that at the stage of framing charge, duty is cast upon the Court to look at the evidence placed before it to see whether or not there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. Further, reliance was also placed on the dictum laid down in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) Cri.L.J. 1606, that the suspicion that the accused has committed an offence must not be simple but grave. In other words, there must be a grave suspicion as against mere suspicion before the Court can frame charge against the accused.

Finally, the Court discussed and followed the law laid down in Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, wherein it was held that where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. For such purpose, he has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before him without making a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter.

The Court accordingly held there must be some nexus or link between the accused and the occurrence which is ex facie available to be seen or inferred from the materials placed before the Court. Only then will the statutory requirement of "sufficient ground" as per Section 227 Cr.P.C. be said to have been satisfied.

Consequent upon the discussion on the facts of the case in the light of aforesaid settled legal proposition, the Court set aside the lower Court's order and discharged the accused from the offences under Sections 493/417/306 of IPC.

Case Title: Shantanu @ Priyabrata Senapati v. State of Orissa

Case No.: CRLREV No. 879 of 2014

Judgment Dated: 08 March 2022

Coram: Justice Sashikanta Mishra

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Das, Sr. Advocate along with M/s. Suman Modi, P.K. Ghosh, S.S. Pradhan, M. Pattnaik & S. Pradhan, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A. Pradhan, Additional Standing Counsel

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 27