The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a criminal revision challenging the framing of charges by the Special Judge. The Court held that strong suspicion founded on material evidence suffices for framing charges under Section 227 CrPC, finding no error in the impugned order.
Criminal Revision dismissed with no orders in the nature of decree.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No.479 of 2023
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---Non-Applicant
For Applicants: Shri Sunil Verma, Advocate. For Non-Applicants: Shri GP Kurrey, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board
03.07.2023
2
“15. We may profitably, in this regard, refer to the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [ State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh , (1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 : AIR 1977 SC 2018] wherein this Court has laid down the principles relating to framing of charge and discharge as follows:
“ 4 . … Reading Sections 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. 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. At that stage the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the
3
accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. … 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 and not under Section 227.”
16. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [ Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal , (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609 : AIR 1979 SC 366] , after survey of case law, this is what the Court has laid down: (SCC p. 9, para 10)
“ 10 . Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
( 1 ) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code 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.
( 2 ) 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.
( 3 ) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however 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 within his right to discharge the accused.
( 4 ) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced 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 appearing in the case and
4
so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”
23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that the accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence.”
the facts and circumstances of the case, having perused the charge sheet filed wherein, prima facie evidence is available and the Applicants are found to be involved in the crime in question and particularly considering the principles laid down in the matter of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra), this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for interference in the the order passed by the Court below.
hereby dismissed .
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Priya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Judge erred in framing charges under Sections 389/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act under Section 227 CrPC given
Whether the lower court rightly held that prima facie evidence was available and no case was made out for discharge of the accused at the charge framing stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of GujaratExplained¶17
(2019) 16 SCC 547 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. Ramesh SinghExplained¶18
(1977) 4 SCC 39 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar SamalExplained¶20
(1979) 3 SCC 4 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Baba @ Sanjay Thawait
Kiran Mahant
State Of Chhattisgarh
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
