Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Smt. Shobha Ramesh Bawane, filed a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order dated 10/02/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which discharged respondents No. 2 and 3 from the case. The applicant was the complainant in a criminal case alleging offences against the respondents. The trial court, while considering the discharge application under Section 227 CrPC, appreciated the evidence and meticulously examined the statements of witnesses, including the statement of an eye-witness, Avinash Kamble, recorded under Section 161 CrPC on 06/05/2010. The trial court discharged the accused on the ground that the witness had changed his stand. The High Court held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction because at the stage of Section 227 CrPC, the court is only required to see whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further. Even a strong suspicion based on prima facie material showing involvement of the accused is sufficient. The court cannot appreciate evidence or weigh the statements of witnesses at this stage. The High Court further held that the earliest statement of the eye-witness recorded under Section 161 CrPC is significant and cannot be discarded merely because the witness subsequently changed his stand; such change can only be considered at the conclusion of the trial. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge under Section 227 - Scope of Inquiry - The court while considering an application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC is only required to see whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further, and even a strong suspicion based on prima facie material is enough - The court cannot appreciate evidence or weigh the statements of witnesses at this stage - Held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by meticulously examining the statement of witnesses and ignoring the settled law (Paras 3-4).
B) Evidence - Statement under Section 161 CrPC - Importance of earliest version - The statement recorded at the first available opportunity under Section 161 CrPC is significant and cannot be discarded at the discharge stage merely because the witness subsequently changed his stand - Such change can only be considered at the conclusion of the trial - Held that the trial court erred in ignoring the earliest statement of the eye-witness (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in discharging the accused by appreciating the evidence in detail at the stage of considering an application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, set aside the impugned order dated 10/02/2012, and directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Scope of Section 227 CrPC
- Discharge
- Prima facie case
- Strong suspicion
- Appreciation of evidence at discharge stage
- Importance of earliest statement under Section 161 CrPC
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 152
Criminal Application (APL) 415 of 2012
Shri R. M. Patwardhan for applicant, Shri M. M. Ekrer, A.P.P. for nonapplicant No.1, Shri A. D. Ramteke for nonapplicants No. 2 & 3
Smt. Shobha Ramesh Bawane
State of Maharashtra, Arvind s/o Pandurangji Warghane, Rakesh @ Banti s/o Ramesh Deotale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order of discharge passed by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 227 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
The applicant (complainant) sought setting aside of the discharge order and direction to proceed with the trial against respondents No. 2 and 3.
Filing Reason
The trial court discharged the accused by appreciating evidence in detail at the discharge stage, which is beyond the scope of Section 227 CrPC.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge passed an order dated 10/02/2012 discharging respondents No. 2 and 3 from the case.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in discharging the accused by appreciating evidence at the stage of Section 227 CrPC?
Whether the earliest statement of an eye-witness under Section 161 CrPC can be ignored at the discharge stage because the witness subsequently changed his stand?
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by meticulously examining the evidence and statements of witnesses, which is not permissible under Section 227 CrPC.
The applicant contended that the statement of eye-witness Avinash Kamble recorded on 06/05/2010 under Section 161 CrPC is significant and cannot be discarded at the discharge stage merely because he later changed his stand.
Ratio Decidendi
At the stage of considering an application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC, the court is only required to see whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further. Even a strong suspicion based on prima facie material showing involvement of the accused is sufficient. The court cannot appreciate evidence or weigh the statements of witnesses at this stage. The earliest statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 CrPC is significant and cannot be ignored merely because the witness subsequently changed his stand; such change can only be considered at the conclusion of the trial.
Judgment Excerpts
It is seen from the impugned order dated 10/02/2012 discharging respondents No. 2 and 3 from the case that the learned Additional Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence and meticulously examined the statement of witnesses, which is not permissible while considering the application filed for discharge of the case under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
What is required to be seen as to whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further in the matter and even if there is some strong suspicion with some material prima facie showing involvement of the applicant/accused in the alleged crime, it would be sufficient for proceeding further in the matter.
If this witness has changed his stand subsequently, it would not mean that what he has stated at the earliest first available opportunity can be said to be false at this stage. It would be something, which can be considered on merits of the case at the conclusion of the trial.
Procedural History
The applicant filed a criminal case against respondents No. 2 and 3. The respondents filed an application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 10/02/2012, discharged the respondents. The applicant then filed the present criminal application under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court challenging the discharge order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 227, 161, 482
