Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.228 – Framing of charges – Standard of proof – Held: At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused – While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.228 – Charges framed against accused-respondent under s.302 r/w s.34 IPC – Prosecution case was that dead body of the husband of the appellant-complainant was found in the field of first respondent – When the appellant came to know, she went running towards her husband’s dead body, but the son of first respondent caught hold of her and forcibly locked her in a room in his house and did not allow her to go near the dead body of her husband – The allegations in the charge sheet suggested that the accused-respondents had earlier quarrelled with deceased thereby suggesting a motive for the crime – Though, the body of deceased was found in the field of first respondent-accused, he did not inform the family of deceased nor informed the police about the same – Trial court framed charges under s.302 r/w s.34 IPC against the accused-respondents – Accused-respondents filed revision – High Court quashed the charges – Aggrieved complainant filed instant appeal – Held: As per s.226, the public prosecutor is required to open the case before the Sessions Court by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence, he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused – In this case, upon hearing the parties and considering the allegations in the charge sheet, the Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed the offence punishable under s.302 IPC r/w s.34 IPC – For framing the charges under s.228, the judge was not required to record detailed reasons – High Court was not right in interfering with the order of the trial court framing the charges against accused-respondents – Impugned order is set aside – Trial case is restored – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. As per the allegations in the charge sheet, on the date of occurrence, the accused-respondents went with deceased to the farm of first respondent for ploughing the land with tractor and that all the three consumed liquor together at the place of incident. Thus, as per the allegations in the charge sheet, the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accusedrespondent Nos.1 and 2. Though, the body of deceased was found in the field of first respondent-accused, he did not inform the family of deceased nor informed the police about the same. The allegations in the charge sheet suggested that accusedrespondent Nos. 1 and 2 had earlier quarrelled with deceased and thereby suggesting a motive for the crime. [Para 11] [427-E-H]
2. Though the circumstances alleged in the charge sheet are to be established during the trial by adducing the evidence, the allegations in the charge sheet show a prima facie case against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2. The circumstances alleged by the prosecution indicate that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen. [Para 12][428-A-B]
3. As per Section 226 Cr.P.C., the public prosecutor is required to open the case before the Sessions Court by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence, he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. For framing the charges under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. At the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen. Upon hearing the parties and based upon the allegations and taking note of the allegations in the charge sheet, the Sessions Judge was satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and framed the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2. While so, the High Court was not right in interfering with the order of the trial court framing the charges against accused-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the High Court, erred in quashing the charges framed against the accused. The impugned order cannot therefore be sustained and is liable to be set aside. [Paras 13, 15, 16][428-C-D; 431-B; D-G]
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9 SCC 460 : [2012] 7 SCR 988; Dinesh Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2014) 13 SCC 137 : [2014]
8 SCR 207; Knati Bhadra Shah and another v. State of West Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722 : [2000] 1 SCR 27 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.