Sajjan Kumar vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(SC) 885

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.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 – Section 227 and 228 – Scope of section 227 and 228 – Principles culled out. (Para 17)
       (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.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points

1. Prima facie case standard for framing charges

The Judge has the undoubted power to sift and weigh evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out, and where materials disclose grave suspicion not properly explained, the Court is justified in framing a charge. (!) (!) (!)

2. Principles governing discharge petitions under Cr.P.C.

The Judge must consider all records, documents, and submissions of both accused and prosecution; if there is not sufficient ground for proceeding, the accused shall be discharged with reasons recorded; if there is ground for presuming the accused committed an offence, the Judge may frame a charge and direct trial, but must not act merely as a Post Office or mouthpiece of the prosecution and must not make a roving enquiry into pros and cons. (!) (!) (!) (!)

3. Role of the Magistrate at the framing-charge stage

At the stage of framing charges under Section 228 or considering a discharge petition under Section 227, the Magistrate or Judge is not required to analyse all materials including reliability or acceptability of evidence; that is for the trial Judge, who alone can appreciate evidentiary value and credibility. (!)

4. Application of grave-suspicion test to the present evidence

The statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-10, and PW-8, though not wholly discredited, contain contradictions and hearsay, and the Court finds that not only grave suspicion but even suspicion has not been thrown up against the appellant, yet the materials are not wholly devoid of evidentiary value for trial. (!) (!) (!)

5. Treatment of delay as a factor

Delay is a relevant factor and every accused is entitled to speedy justice under Article 21, but it is not the sole ground for quashing proceedings; the Court must balance all attendant circumstances and, where the nature of the offence is grave and materials exist, the prosecution should not be closed merely because of long delay. (!) (!) (!) (!)

6. Relevance of the Vakil Prasad Singh principles

The principles from Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar regarding speedy trial and balancing test are applicable, but they cannot be applied straightaway to quash proceedings in an extraordinary factual situation where adequate material has been placed by the prosecution. (!) (!)

7. Effect of High Court observations on the trial

Observations made by the High Court in paragraphs 64, 65, 69, 70, 72, 73, and 50, while not warranted, will not affect the ultimate analysis and final verdict of the trial Judge, who is free to analyse, appreciate, and evaluate all materials independently. (!) (!)

8. CBI investigation and Nanavati Commission recommendations

The Government entrusted further investigation to the CBI based on the recommendations of Justice Nanavati Commission discussed in Parliament, and this action was not challenged by the appellant; the CBI acted in consonance with Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. (!) (!) (!)

9. Status of Delhi Police closure report

The Delhi Police filed a closure report after noting contradictions in the complainant's statements and the absence of eye-witnesses, but the Magistrate declined to give a definite opinion, keeping the matter open for further investigation by the CBI; no further probe into this aspect is required. (!) (!)

10. Final disposition of the appeal

The appeal is disposed of with the clarification that framing of charges is not bad in law or abuse of process, but the trial Judge is directed to take sincere efforts for early completion of the case, and the interim order of 13.08.2010 is vacated. (!)

How to determine whether a prima facie case exists for framing charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.?

What are the applicable principles for evaluating discharge petitions under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C.?

Can delay in prosecution be a standalone ground for quashing charges in cases involving grave offences?

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday