Landmark judgment on discharge of accused and framing of charge
This Court the went on to cull out principles as
regards scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the
Code, which in our view broadly apply to
Sections 238 and 239 of the Code as well. It was
observed thus in para 21:
21. On consideration of the authorities about the
scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the
following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges Under Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima
facie case against the accused has been made out.
The test to determine prima facie case would
depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office
or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the Court, any basic infirmities
etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the
Court could form an opinion that the accused
might have committed offence, it can frame the
charge, though for conviction the conclusion is
required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the
probative value of the material on record cannot
be gone into but before framing a charge the Court
must apply its judicial mind on the material placed
on record and must be satisfied that the
commission of offence by the accused was
possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court
is required to evaluate the material and documents
on record with a view to find out if the facts
emerging therefrom taken at their face value
discloses the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. For this limited
purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected
even at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is
opposed to common sense or the broad
probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them
gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from
grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered
to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is
not to see whether the trial will end in conviction
or acquittal.”
(Emphasis given)
10. In Crl.A.Nos.285-287 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)
Nos.300-302 of 2013) ‘Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta & ors.’ decided on
11.02.2015, Supreme Court held :
“It is also well settled that cognizance is taken of
the offence and not the offender. Hence at the
stage of framing of charge an individual accused
may seek discharge if he or she can show that the
materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of
charge against that particular accused. But such
exercise is required only at a later stage, as
indicated above and not at the stage of taking
cognizance and summoning the accused on the
basis of prima facie case. Even at the stage of
framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for
the purpose of conviction is not the requirement
and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if
the court finds that the materials are wholly
insufficient for the purpose of trial. It is also a
settled proposition of law that even when there are
materials raising strong suspicion against an
accused, the court will be justified in rejecting a
prayer for discharge and in granting an
opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record
the entire evidence in accordance with law so that
case of both the sides may be considered
appropriately on conclusion of trial.”
(Emphasis given)
regards scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the
Code, which in our view broadly apply to
Sections 238 and 239 of the Code as well. It was
observed thus in para 21:
21. On consideration of the authorities about the
scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the
following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges Under Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima
facie case against the accused has been made out.
The test to determine prima facie case would
depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office
or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the Court, any basic infirmities
etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the
Court could form an opinion that the accused
might have committed offence, it can frame the
charge, though for conviction the conclusion is
required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the
probative value of the material on record cannot
be gone into but before framing a charge the Court
must apply its judicial mind on the material placed
on record and must be satisfied that the
commission of offence by the accused was
possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court
is required to evaluate the material and documents
on record with a view to find out if the facts
emerging therefrom taken at their face value
discloses the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. For this limited
purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected
even at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is
opposed to common sense or the broad
probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them
gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from
grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered
to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is
not to see whether the trial will end in conviction
or acquittal.”
(Emphasis given)
10. In Crl.A.Nos.285-287 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)
Nos.300-302 of 2013) ‘Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta & ors.’ decided on
11.02.2015, Supreme Court held :
“It is also well settled that cognizance is taken of
the offence and not the offender. Hence at the
stage of framing of charge an individual accused
may seek discharge if he or she can show that the
materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of
charge against that particular accused. But such
exercise is required only at a later stage, as
indicated above and not at the stage of taking
cognizance and summoning the accused on the
basis of prima facie case. Even at the stage of
framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for
the purpose of conviction is not the requirement
and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if
the court finds that the materials are wholly
insufficient for the purpose of trial. It is also a
settled proposition of law that even when there are
materials raising strong suspicion against an
accused, the court will be justified in rejecting a
prayer for discharge and in granting an
opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record
the entire evidence in accordance with law so that
case of both the sides may be considered
appropriately on conclusion of trial.”
(Emphasis given)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 15th MAY, 2015
CRL.REV.P. 162/2014 & Crl.M.A.4214/2014
STATE
Versus
BHUPINDER SINGH BISHT & ORS.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
Citation: 2015VIIAD(Delhi)735, 220(2015)DLT266
DECIDED ON : 15th MAY, 2015
CRL.REV.P. 162/2014 & Crl.M.A.4214/2014
STATE
Versus
BHUPINDER SINGH BISHT & ORS.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
Citation: 2015VIIAD(Delhi)735, 220(2015)DLT266
-https://www.lawweb.in/2015/12/landmark-judgment-on-discharge-of.html?
