Case Note & Summary
The revision applicant, Tika Bahadur Bhandari, was an accused in Sessions Case No.19/2012 before the Sessions Judge, Panaji, for offences punishable under Sections 392 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 IPC. The Sessions Judge, by order dated 18/06/2015, directed framing of charge against the applicant and his co-accused. The applicant challenged this order by way of a Criminal Revision Application before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The applicant's counsel argued that there was not even an iota of evidence to prima facie make out the offences alleged. He submitted that the material collected during investigation, taken at its face value, did not reveal commission of any offence or establish the basic ingredients of the offence. He relied on the principles laid down in State of U.P. Vs. Dr. Sanjay Singh and another (1994 Supp (2) SCC 707) and Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi (2008)10 SCC 394, which held that if the evidence gives rise only to suspicion and not grave suspicion, the accused is entitled to discharge. The Public Prosecutor argued that there was material justifying framing of charge, including the applicant's presence at the scene and recovery of a mobile phone belonging to the deceased. The High Court examined the material on record and found that the only evidence against the applicant was his presence at the scene and recovery of a mobile phone, which was not sufficient to establish the basic ingredients of the offences of murder and robbery. The court held that the learned Sessions Judge had directed framing of charge only on suspicion and not on grave suspicion. Accordingly, 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 distinct from grave suspicion; if evidence gives rise only to suspicion and not grave suspicion, the accused is entitled to discharge (Para 5). C) Indian Penal Code - Murder and Robbery - Sections 302, 392 read with Section 34 IPC - Prima Facie Evidence - Where the only evidence against the accused is his presence at the scene and recovery of a mobile phone, which is not sufficient to establish basic ingredients of murder and robbery, no charge can be framed (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the material collected during investigation, taken at 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 discharge 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 revision applicant from the case.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Grave suspicion vs mere suspicion
- Prima facie case for framing charge
