Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM and ANIL R. DAVE
Sajjan Kumar...... Appellant (s)
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation.... Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010
Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6374 of 2010
Decided on : SEPTEMBER 20, 2010.
(1979) 3 SCC 4; (2002) 2 SCC 135 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 – Section 227 and 228 – While framing of charge u/s 228 or considering discharge petition u/s 227 – It is not for the Magistrate or a Judge to analyse all the materials including pros and cons, reliability or acceptability etc. – The evidentiary value of the materials to be appreciated at the trial. (Para 18)
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 227 and 228, and Article 21, Constitution of India – Every accused is entitled to speedy trial and justice and delay may be a relevant ground for discharge or quashing the proceedings – However proceedings cannot be quashed without testing the materials available with the prosecution at trial – Those materials have to be tested in the context of prejudice to the accused only at the trial – Proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay. (Para 25)
(2009) 3 SCC 355; (2010) 2 SCC 398; (2007) 7 SCC 394 – Relied upon
(d) Administration of Justice – Observations of High Court – Based on materials on record – Trial court has to evaluate all materials and evidence independently – Observations will not affect the ultimate analysis and final verdict of the trial Judge. (Para 26)
(1999) 6 SCC 667 – Distinguished impliedly
Facts of the case:
The present case arises out of 1984 anti-Sikh Riot cases in which thousands of Sikhs were killed.
In the FIR, 24 complaints were investigated pertaining to more than 60 deaths in the area. As many as 5 charge-sheets were filed by Delhi Police relating to 5 deaths which resulted in acquittals.
One supplementary charge-sheet about robbery, rioting etc. was also filed which also ended in acquittal.
The investigation pertaining to the death of family members of Smt. Jagdish Kaur PW-1, was reopened by the anti-Riot Cell of Delhi Police in the year 2002 and after investigation, a Closure Report was filed in the Court on 15/22.12.2005.
Pursuant to the recommendation of Justice Nanavati Commission, the Government of India entrusted the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
After fresh investigation, CBI filed charge-sheet in the present case. After committal, charges were framed. At the same time, the appellant has also filed a petition for discharge raising various grounds in support of his claim. Since he was not successful before the Special Court, he filed a revision before the High Court and by the impugned order the High Court dismissed his criminal revision and directed the Trial Court for early completion of the trial since the same is pending from 1984.
Finding of the Court:
It cannot be concluded that framing of charges against the appellant by the trial Judge is either bad in law or abuse of process of law or without any material.
Result:
Appeal disposed of.
Key Points: - The judgment outlines the scope and principles of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. for framing charges and discharge, including consideration of records, submissions, and the distinction between grave suspicion and mere suspicion. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It clarifies that when framing charges, the court may sift and weigh material to determine a prima facie case and grave suspicion, without conducting a full trial; two plausible views may lead to discharge if only suspicion is present. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The decision discusses speedy trial under Article 21, balancing factors to determine prejudice from delay, and permits continuing prosecution with possible remedies but emphasizes testing materials at trial rather than quashing solely due to delay. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court held that framing of charges in this case was not bad in law or an abuse of process, but it directs the trial court to complete the case as early as possible given the long passage of time since the alleged incident. (!) (!) - The proceedings arose from 1984 anti-Sikh riots; CBI charge-sheeting and re-investigation were upheld as proper under Cr.P.C. prior to trial. (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) Application for intervention is allowed.
2) Leave granted.
3) This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 19.07.2010 whereby the learned single Judge confirmed the order dated 15.05.2010 passed by the District Judge-VII/NE-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in S.C. No. 26/10, RC SII 2005 S0024. By the said order, the Additional Sessions Judge has ordered the framing of charges against the appellant for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 153A, 295, 302, 395, 427, 436, 339 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and for the offence under Section 109 read with Sections 147, 148, 149, 153A, 295, 302, 395, 427, 435, 339 and 505 IPC, besides framing of a separate charge for offence punishable under Section 153A IPC and rejected the application for discharge filed by the appellant.
4) Brief Facts:- (a) The present case arises out of 1984 anti-Sikh Riot cases in which thousands of Sikhs were killed. Delhi Police has made this case a part of FIR No. 416 of 1984 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt. In this FIR, 24 complaints were investigated pertaining to more than 60 deaths in the area. As many as 5 charge-sheets were filed by Delhi Police relating to 5 deaths which resulted in acquittals. One supplementary charge-sheet about robbery, rioting etc. was also filed which also ended in acquittal. The investigation pertaining to the death of family members of Smt. Jagdish Kaur PW-1, was reopened by the anti-Riot Cell of Delhi Police in the year 2002 and after investigation, a Closure Report was filed in the Court on 15/22.12.2005. (b) After filing of the Closure Report in the present case, on 31.07.2008, a Status Report was filed by the Delhi Police before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. Pursuant to the recommendation of Justice Nanavati Commission, the Government of India entrusted the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "CBI") on 24.10.2005. On receipt of the said communication, the respondent-CBI registered a formal FIR on 22.11.2005. The Closure Report was filed by Delhi Police on 15.12.2005/22.12.2005, when a case had already been registered by the CBI on 22.11.2005 and the documents had already been transferred to the respondent-CBI.
(c) After fresh investigation, CBI filed charge-sheet bearing No. 1/2010 in the present case on 13.01.2010. After committal, charges were framed on 15.05.2010. At the same time, the appellant has also filed a petition for discharge raising various grounds in support of his claim. Since he was not successful before the Special Court, he filed a revision before the High Court and by the impugned order dated 19.07.2010, after finding no merit in the case of the appellant, the High Court dismissed his criminal revision and directed the Trial Court for early completion of the trial since the same is pending from 1984.
5) Heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. H.P. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent-CBI and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the intervenor.
6) Submissions: (a) After taking us through the charge-sheet dated 13.01.2010, statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-10, order dated 15.05.2010 framing charges by the District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and the impugned order of the High Court dated 19.07.2010, Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that i) the statement of Jagdish Kaur is highly doubtful and later she made an improvement, hence the same cannot be relied upon to frame charge against the appellant; ii) reliance on the evidence of Jagsher Singh PW-2, who gave a statement after a gap of 25 years cannot be accepted; iii) the statement of Nirprit Kaur PW-10 is also not acceptable since the same was also made after a gap of 25 years of the occurrence; iv) other witnesses who were examined
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
