Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said charges cannot be framed upon mere suppositions or suspicions or conjectures, especially if strong suspicion cannot be inferred from material available before the court, as it discharged a businessman in a case of custodial death of his employee.

"Strong suspicion in order to be sufficient to frame a charge should be based on the material brought on record by the prosecution and should not be based on supposition, suspicions and conjectures. In other words, in order to be a basis to frame charge the strong suspicion should be the one emerging from the materials on record brought by the prosecution," a bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia said.

The court allowed an appeal filed by Ram Prakash Chadha against the Allahabad High Court's order rej cting his plea for discharge in a 1993 case related to custodial death of his cashier Ram Kishore.

Dealing with Section 227, CrPC (power of discharge), the bench said, "We should bear in mind that exercise of power under the provision is legally permissible only by considering ‘the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith’."

The court explained the expression ‘the record of the case and documents submitted therewith refers only to the materials produced by the prosecution and not by the accused. 

"We cannot refer to the grounds carrying or referring to the case of the appellant-accused, in view of the provisions of law and position of law, requiring to confine such consideration only with reference to the materials produced by the prosecution," the bench said.

There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that at the stage of consideration of such an application for discharge, defence case or material, if produced at all by the accused, cannot be looked at all, it said.

"Once “the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith” are before the court they alone can be looked into for considering the application for discharge and thereafter if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused concerned then he shall be discharged after recording reasons therefor," the bench said.

The court explained 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. 

"We are of the considered view that a caution has to be sounded for the reason that the chances of going beyond the permissible jurisdiction under Section 227, CrPC, and entering into the scope of power under Section 232, CrPC, cannot be ruled out as such instances are aplenty," the bench said.

Referring to pre-battle protection under Section 227, CrPC, the court said though, this provision is couched in negative, it obligated the court concerned to unfailingly consider the record of the case and document submitted therewith and also to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused is available thereunder. 

"Certainly, if the answer of such consideration is in the negative, the court is bound to discharge the accused and to record reasons therefor," the bench said.

It further pointed out 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, the bench said.

"In a case where an application is filed for discharge under Section 227, CrPC, 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," the court said.

"We are not oblivious of the fact that normally, the court is to record his reasons only for discharging an accused at the stage of Section 227, CrPC. However, when an application for discharge is filed under Section 227, CrPC, 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," the bench added.

The appellant, the owner of Goodwill Enterprises dealing with wood, got registered a robbery case at Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, alleging that his cashier/accountant-Ram Kishore and one Pappu Yadav went for collecting his business proceeds from shops at Meerut and Modi Nagar in the morning of July 15, 1993. 

On their way back from Meerut, after collecting proceeds, they stopped the car in front of Ginni Devi School in Modi Nagar and Ram Kishore went to Poonam Sales for collection and Pappu Yadav remain seated in the car with the bag containing the collection and some documents. Soon, two persons came and snatched the said bag from Pappu Yadav after putting him at gun point and escaped on a motorcycle. 

Two days, after the appellant called Ram Kishore from his home and took him to police station on a direction by the police for inquiry. Ram Kishore was kept in police station and allegedly tortured for six days, resulting into his death on July 24, 1993.

In the chargesheet filed on February 21, 2000, Rameshwar Dayal Pathak, the then Inspector of Police and Jawahar Lal, the then Sub-Inspector of Police and the appellant were made accused Nos. 1 to 3 respectively, for commission of offences under Sections 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34, IPC. 

The trial court dismissed his application for discharge on April 19, 2007. The HC also dismissed his plea on April 21, 2023.

The appellant contended the very charge filed by the CB-CID on February 21, 2000 in the custodial death case would reveal that he is the informant. He submitted that the final report would further show that he was witness No 1 and also as accused No 3. 

His counsel submitted that there is absolute absence of any material to arraign the appellant herein as an accused with the aid of either Section 120B, IPC or Section 34, IPC. 

He submitted neither the statements of witnesses or the chargesheet carry any such accusation or insinuation and that suspicion was made only by the court while rejecting the appellant’s application for discharge. In short, his contention was that neither the trial court nor the High Court considered the application for discharge in the manner required under law.

After going through the records of the case and the documents submitted therewith, the court said it can only be found that the said finding 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.

"We are at a loss to understand, how in the absence of ground for a prima facie case revealed from the materials produced by the prosecution a person who lost his money and lodged a complaint based on the information furnished by his employee can be implicated in an offence, that too a grave allegation of commission of an offence of custodial death amounting to murder, merely because he caused the presence of the person concerned before the Police Station unless the ingredients to attract criminal conspiracy to commit any specific offence in relation to Ram Kishore is available," the bench said.