Case Note & Summary
The revision applicant, Tika Bahadur Bhandari, challenged an order dated 18/06/2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Panaji in Sessions Case No.19/2012, which directed framing of charges against him and his co-accused for offences punishable under Sections 392 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 IPC. The applicant sought discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The applicant's counsel argued that there was no prima facie evidence to make out the alleged offences, and that the learned Sessions Judge had directed framing of charge only on suspicion, not grave suspicion, relying on precedents such as State of U.P. v. Dr. Sanjay Singh and another (1994 Supp (2) SCC 707) and Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi (2008) 10 SCC 394. The Public Prosecutor contended that there was no material justifying interference. The High Court examined the impugned order and found that the Sessions Judge had observed that the applicant was last seen with the deceased and that the applicant had not offered any explanation for the death, but the court noted that the applicant had not been charged with murder under Section 300 IPC but only under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and there was no evidence of common intention. The court held that the material on record did not establish the basic ingredients of the offences, and the suspicion was not grave enough to frame charges. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order, and discharged the applicant from the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Section 227 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - If the material collected during investigation, taken at its face value, does not reveal commission of any offence or does not establish basic ingredients of the offence alleged, the accused has to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (Para 5).
B) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charge - Grave Suspicion - Mere suspicion is insufficient to frame charge; there must be grave suspicion based on evidence. If evidence gives rise only to suspicion and not grave suspicion, accused is entitled to discharge (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the material collected during investigation, taken at its face value, reveals commission of offences under Sections 302 and 392 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against the revision applicant, or whether he is entitled to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order dated 18/06/2015, and discharged the applicant from the case.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Grave suspicion vs mere suspicion
- Prima facie case for framing charge
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (01) 84
Criminal Revision Application No.71 of 2015
Mr. Shivan Dessai, Mr. J. Ramaiya for the Applicant; Mr. S. R. Rivankar, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent
Mr. Tika Bahadur Bhandari
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application challenging order framing charges under Sections 302 and 392 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought discharge from the case under Section 227 CrPC.
Filing Reason
The Sessions Judge directed framing of charges against the applicant and co-accused for murder and robbery, which the applicant challenged on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence.
Previous Decisions
The Sessions Judge, Panaji, by order dated 18/06/2015 in Sessions Case No.19/2012, directed framing of charges against the applicant and co-accused for offences under Sections 392 and 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
Issues
Whether the material collected during investigation, taken at its face value, reveals commission of offences under Sections 302 and 392 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against the revision applicant.
Whether the applicant is entitled to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no prima facie evidence to make out the offences alleged, and the learned Judge directed framing of charge only on suspicion, not grave suspicion, relying on State of U.P. v. Dr. Sanjay Singh and another and Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no material justifying interference with the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi
If the material collected during investigation, taken at its face value, does not reveal commission of any offence or does not establish the basic ingredients of the offence alleged, the accused has to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC. Mere suspicion, as distinct from grave suspicion, is insufficient to frame charges.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is not even an iota of evidence to prima facie make out the offences alleged against the applicant.
He submits that it is well settled law that if the material collected during the course of investigation, taken at its face value, does not reveal commission of any offence or does not establish the basic ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the accused has to be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
He also submits, relying upon the cases of State of U.P. Vs. Dr. Sanjay Singh and another; 1994 Supp (2) SCC 707 and Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi; (2008)10 SCC 394 that if the evidence produced gives rise to suspicion only and is distinct from grave suspicion, the accused would be entitled to seek discharge from the case.
Procedural History
The Sessions Judge, Panaji, by order dated 18/06/2015 in Sessions Case No.19/2012, directed framing of charges against the applicant and co-accused for offences under Sections 392 and 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The applicant filed Criminal Revision Application No.71 of 2015 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 392, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 227
