Ram Prakash Chadha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

Held: In the final report filed in FIR No.371 of 1993 viz., in the custodial death case, the record revealed that the essence of the accusation is commission of custodial death owing to the torture to which victim-deceased was subjected to, from 17.07.1993 to 23.07.1993 – A scanning of the charge as also the other materials including the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s. 161, Cr.PC, would reveal that there is absolute absence of any accusation or even an insinuation that the appellant had played any role in torturing victim – The implication of the appellant in the crime is with the aid of s.120B and s.34, IPC – An agreement referred to in Section 120A, IPC may be expressed or implied or in part express and in part implied – However, no record of the case or documents submitted therewith carry such an allegation/accusation against the appellant – The findings of the Trial Court on the ground to proceed against the appellant is based on suppositions and suspicions, having no foundational support from the materials produced by the prosecution – It is to be noted that it is nobody’s case that the appellant was in the Police Station or informed of the sufferance from chest pain of accused – In another case, Crime No.351/1993 u/s. 392, IPC the deceased was only a witness and that the amount in cash and the draft involved was that of the appellant – It is also the case of the prosecution that the said case was registered, at the instance of the appellant against unknown persons – Hence, when the appellant who lost the money went to Police Station along with the witness thereof, how can it be presumed by the Court as a strong case for suspicion for commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy – When there is no case for the prosecution that the appellant pointed the fingers at deceased how the lodging of the complaint, apprehending custodial death of deceased who was appellant’s clerk for about 13 years, which caused the registration of custodial death case under FIR No.371/1993 can be taken as a ground for framing charge against the appellant for the offences punishable u/s. 302, IPC, 120-B with the aid of s.34, IPC – These aspects were not considered by the High Court – Consequently, the order and judgment dated 21.04.2023 passed by the High Court in an application filed u/s. 482, Cr.PC, and the order dated 19.04.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI) are set aside.[Paras 23, 24, 28, 30, 35]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Jurisdiction of the Court:

Held: It will be within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused concerned has been made out – This Court is of the considered view that a caution has to be sounded for the reason that the chances of going beyond the permissible jurisdiction u/s. 227, Cr.PC, and entering into the scope of power u/s. 232, Cr.PC, cannot be ruled out as such instances are aplenty. [Para 19]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Framing of charge – Duty and obligation of the Court:

Held: The question of framing the charge would arise only in a case where the court upon such exercise satisfies itself about the prima facie case revealing from “the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith” against the accused concerned – In short, it can be said in that view of the matter that the intention embedded is to ensure that 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 u/s. 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. [Para 22]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Application for discharge – Disclosure of reasons by the Court for rejection of application:

Held: When an application for discharge is filed under Section 227, Cr.PC, 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. [Para 22]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Meaning of the expression “the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith” – discussed.