Case Note & Summary
The applicant, an Inspector of Police, was accused No.23 in Sessions Case No.312 of 2014 arising out of a criminal conspiracy. He filed a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC before the Special Judge, which was dismissed on 11.6.2015 on the ground that the material on record gave rise to grave suspicion against him. The applicant challenged this order by way of a criminal revision application under Section 397 CrPC. The High Court heard the parties. The applicant's counsel argued that the prosecution relied mainly on the statement of PW87 Jaswinder Singh and PW106 Gurudayalsingh, but these witnesses did not identify the applicant, and no identification parade was held. The CDR records of phone No.984828177 were relied upon, but there was no material to show the applicant possessed that phone. The applicant also claimed he was on duty at Singarayakonda Police Station on 23.11.2005 till 5 p.m., which was 370 km from Hyderabad, making it impossible for him to be part of the escort on the same night. The prosecution, represented by the CBI, submitted that the applicant was charged under Section 120B IPC for criminal conspiracy, and the material prima facie revealed his involvement. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that at the stage of framing charges, the court need only see if there is grave suspicion. The material on record, including the CDR records and witness statements, prima facie indicated the applicant's involvement. Therefore, the discharge application was rightly dismissed. The revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge - Section 227 CrPC - Grave Suspicion - The court held that at the stage of framing of charges, the court is required to consider whether the material on record gives rise to grave suspicion against the accused. If the material prima facie indicates involvement, discharge is not warranted. (Paras 2-4) B) Indian Penal Code - Criminal Conspiracy - Section 120B IPC - Circumstantial Evidence - The court noted that conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence and that the CDR records and statements of witnesses prima facie indicated the applicant's involvement in the conspiracy. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the material on record is sufficient to give rise to grave suspicion against the applicant to frame charges under Section 120B IPC and other offences.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the order of the Special Judge dated 11.6.2015 dismissing the discharge application.
Law Points
- Grave suspicion sufficient for framing charges
- Discharge not warranted if prima facie material exists
- Conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence
