S.227 CrPC| Court Must Apply Its Mind On Whether Materials Of Case Disclose Grounds To Proceed Against Accused : Supreme Court
Discharging a person who was arraigned as an accused, the Supreme Court observed that the grounds for proceeding against the accused should not be based on mere suppositions suspicions, or conjectures but must be founded upon relevant material available before the Court.
The Court said that while considering the application for discharge under Section 227 of CrPC, if 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith doesn't disclose grounds for proceeding against the accused then the accused shall be discharged.
"An accused will be made to stand the ordeal of trial only if 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' discloses ground for proceeding against him. When that be so, in a case where an application is filed for discharge under Section 227, Cr.PC, it is an irrecusable duty and obligation of the Court to apply its mind and answer to it regarding the existence of or otherwise, of ground for proceeding against the accused, by confining such consideration based only on the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. To wit, such conclusion on existence or otherwise of ground to proceed against the accused concerned should not be and could not be based on mere suppositions or suspicions or conjectures, especially not founded upon material available before the Court," held the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The Court added that the trial court while deciding the application for discharge ought to record reasons for refusing to discharge the accused.
“We are not oblivious of the fact that normally, the Court is to record his reasons only for discharging an accused at the stage of Section 227, Cr.P.C. However, when an application for discharge is filed under Section 227, Cr.P.C., the Court concerned is bound to disclose the reason(s), though, not in detail, for finding sufficient ground for rejecting the application or in other words, for finding prima facie case, as it will enable the superior Court to examine the challenge against the order of rejection.”, the judgment authored by Justice Ravikumar said.
Upon placing reliance on the Allahabad High Court's decision in BK Sharma v. State of UP, 1987 SCC OnLine ALL 314 the Court observed however grave may be the suspicion to frame a charge against the accused, a framing of a charge should be based on the material brought on record by the prosecution and should not be based on supposition, suspicions and conjectures.
During Charge Framing Judges Have Power To Sift and Weigh Evidence For Limited Purpose, Not To Determine Guilt Of Accused
The Court observed that though it is permissible for the trial court to sift and weigh the evidence for framing a charge against the accused, however, it is impermissible for the trial court to enter into an appreciation of the evidence brought in the record by the prosecution as the appreciation of evidence at the stage of framing of charge would defeat the purpose of Section 232 of Cr.P.C. i.e., denial of opportunity to the prosecution to prove the evidence led against the accused in the trial.
“In short, though it is permissible to sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused, on appreciation of the admissibility and the evidentiary value such materials brought on record by the prosecution is impermissible as it would amount to denial of opportunity to the prosecution to prove them appropriately at the appropriate stage besides amounting to exercise of the power coupled with obligation under Section 232, Cr.P.C., available only after taking the evidence for the prosecution and examining the accused.”, the court observed.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the accused-appellant was discharged of the charges of custodial death of its employee, as the trial court without recording reasons before the framing of charges, proceeded to frame a charge against the accused based on suspicion in the absence of legal evidence.
Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pallavi Pratap, AOR Ms. Prachi Pratap, Adv. Dr. Prashant Pratap, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. Mr. Gautam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kinjal Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv. Ms. Muskan Jain, Adv.
Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G. Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Abhinav S. Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Adv.
Case Title: Ram Prakash Chadha Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 475