Back
2000(7) Supreme 201
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
D.P. Mohapatra & Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
State of Delhi -Appellant
versus
Gyan Devi & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 888 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2206 of 2000)
Decided on 18-10-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Sunita Sharma, V.P. Gogne, and D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S.L. Aneja, Advocate.
Held : The legal position is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the Trial Court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the Courtto consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking for the quashing of charge framed against them the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the Trial Court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases. (Para 7)
In the instant case the High Court has erred in its approach to the case as if it was evaluating the medical evidence for the purpose of determining the question whether the charge under Section 304/34 IPC framed against the accused respondents 1 and 2 was likely to succeed or not. This question was to be considered by the Trial Judge after recording the entire evidence in the case. It was not for the High Court to pre-judge the case at the stage when only a few witnesses (doctors) had been examined by the prosecution and that too under the direction of the High Court in the revision petition filed by the accused. The High Court has not observed that the prosecution had closed the evidence from its side. There is also no discussion or observation in the impugned order that the facts and circumstances of the case make it an exceptional case in which immediate interference of the High Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted in the interest of justice. On consideration of the matter we have no hesitation to hold that the order under challenge is vitiated on account of erroneous approach of the High Court and it is clearly unsustainable. (Para 10)
JUDGMENT
D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.
2. The limited question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the High Court committed any illegality/error in quashing the charge framed under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C. ) against respondents 1 to 3 by the Sessions Judge in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.)?
3. On receipt of a report regarding the murder of one Smt. Sudesh, who was the daughter-in-law of respondent 1 and wife of respondent 2, the police made an investigation and laid a challan against the three respondents under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, on consideration of the challan and the papers filed along with it, framed charges under Section 498-A/34 IPC against all the three respondents and under Section 304/34 IPC against the respondent 1 and 2 vide the order dated 19th February, 1996. The charge under Section 304/34 IPC which is relevant for the purpose of this proceeding is to the following effect :
"And secondly, that you Veer Bhan Gulati and Smt. Gian Devi, on or about 26.11.1991 at H.N.N.-11B/II, Dilshad Garden, both in furtherance of common intention caused the death of Sudesh with intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death or with the knowledge that your act was likely to cause her death and thereby committed an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 IPC read with 34 IPC and within my cognizance."
Shortly after the said order was passed, the accused persons filed a revision being Criminal Revision No. 113 of 1996 in the High Court seeking quashing of the charge under Section 304/34 IPC which was disposed of by the order passed on 12.12.1997. On a perusal of the said order it appears that the High Court disposed of the revision petition accepting the suggestions made by the counsel for the petitioners (accused) and the counsel representing the State that the Addl. Sessions Judge may be directed to proceed to first record the medical evidence in the case till the recording of such evidence presence of Gyan Devi and Raj Sehgal i.e. respondents 1 and 2 herein in Court be exempted as they would not be required for the purposes of identification and they can be effectively defended even in their absence. The learned single Judge accepted the suggestion and accordingly issued direction to the Addl. Sessions Judge to record the medical evidence first and till that part of the prosecution evidence is concluded to exempt the aforementioned accused persons from personal appearance in Court. The operative portion of the order reads as follows :
"In view of what has been ordered above the learned counsel for the petitioners prays that without prejudice to the pleas which the petitioners may like to take after the recording of the medical evidence, the present petition be dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, it is dismissed as withdrawn."
In compliance with the direction in the High Court order, the Addl. Sessions Judge recorded the evidence of the doctors i.e. Dr. S.K. Verma (PW-1), Dr. Nagendra Prasad (PW-2), Dr. V.V. Gupta (PW-3) and V.P. Gupta (PW-5). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor representing the State informed the Court that the prosecution has no other medical evidence to be led in the case. Thereafter an application was filed on behalf of the accused persons before the learned trial Judge seeking their discharge from the offence under Section 304/34 IPC which was dismissed by the order dated 14th May, 1999. Thereafter, the accused persons filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the legality of the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge and also seeking quashing of the charge under Section 304/34 IPC framed against them. The said petition was allowed by the learned single Judge of the High Court and the charge framed under Section 304/34 IPCagainst respondent 1 and 2 was quashed b
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
