Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 648
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Vikramjit Kakati – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1140 of 2022, SLP (Crl.) No. 1211 of 2022
Decided On : 04-08-2022
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Priya Hingo Rani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Azim H. Laskar, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Adv. Mr. Adtiya Kumar A., Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Anirudh Jamwal, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Discharge of accused – No charge can be framed in absence of even prima facie material against accused.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/120B/201/118 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 – Murder, conspiracy, disappearance of evidence and concealment of design to commit offence – Rejection of discharge application – Investigating officer has not brought even prima facie material in charge-sheet as to what was motive on part of appellant to commit alleged offence – Deceased was a colleague/friend of appellant working in same organization – On fateful morning, appellant learnt about burn injuries of deceased through accused no.1 i.e., wife of deceased on telephone – Only eyewitness in present case is domestic servant present in house of deceased – She neither in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated anything about involvement of appellant in commission of alleged offence – She is the best witness of case – Rest of witnesses whose statements were recorded by Police nowhere implicated appellant, except complainant who was not even an eyewitness to incident – So far as conspiracy, as alleged, is concerned, some evidence ought to have emerged or prosecution could have brought on record some prima facie material whereby appellant along with accused persons had prior meeting of mind to execute alleged offence and in given facts and circumstances, there is no justification for appellant to undergo agony of facing trial, to which appellant is not even prima facie connected – In absence of even prima facie material, oral/documentary, being placed by prosecution in charge-sheet, Trial Court as well as High Court have committed serious error in framing charge against appellant – Impugned orders quashed and set aside and appellant stands discharged from charges framed against him. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal is directed against the order passed by High Court of Gauhati dated 3rd December, 2021 declining to interfere with order passed by Trial Court, rejecting discharge application filed by appellant under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
Findings of Court:
Observations made in this judgment are only confined to the appellant and the trial Court may proceed with the matter against other accused persons independently without being influenced by observations made herein and conclude the trial on its own merits in accordance with law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
AJAY RASTOGI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Gauhati dated 3rd December, 2021 declining to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sivasagar, in Sessions Case No. 57 (SS) of 2012, rejecting the discharge application filed by the appellant under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
3. The seminal facts relevant for the purpose are that on 28th April, 2009, an FIR was lodged by one Smt. Rajia Islam (mother of the deceased) at Sivasagar Police Station stating, inter-alia, that her son Lt. Qureshi Sahidul Islam was burnt to death under suspicious circumstances inside his rented house at Sivasagar by his wife and the present appellant. Her son succumbed to the injuries sustained by him while on the way to hospital. On receipt of the complaint, an FIR was registered at Sivasagar P.S. Case No. 198/2009, under Section 302 IPC. The police filed charge-sheet under Sections 302/120B/201/118 IPC against three persons namely Smt. Zahida Imdad Islam (wife of the deceased), Smt. Jahanara Islam (mother of Zahida Imdad Islam) and the present appellant, along with a list of thirteen witnesses. The only allegation levelled against the present appellant was that he had, in conspiracy with other accused persons, removed the evidence of offence from the place where the alleged crime had been committed.
4. The learned trial Judge initially by order dated 21st June, 2012, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, came to the conclusion that there is prima-facie case against him and others and fixed 17th July, 2012 as the next date of hearing for framing of charges and thereafter, charges were framed against accused Zahida Imdad Islam, Jahanara Islam and the appellant under Sections 302/120B IPC and under Section 201 IPC against Jahanara Islam and the appellant by the order dated 17th July, 2012.
5. The revision preferred by the appellant against framing of charge came to be dismissed by the High Court under the order impugned dated 3rd December, 2021, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.
6. The main thrust of the contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has no nexus with the commission of crime. He was a friend of the deceased working in the same office. At the time of the incident, the appellant was working for the Indian Oil Tanking (IOT), a joint venture of Indian Oil Corporation and Oil Tanking of Germany, as Project Engineer, Sivasagar. On the fateful morning, the appellant received a telephonic message from the wife of the deceased that her husband had sustained burn injuries and requested him to come to their house and after receipt of the information, he, along with other colleague Tariqul Rafique @ Maju, came to the house of the deceased by his car. Seeing burn injuries on the body of deceased, he along with Tariqul Rafique took him to the nearby Nursing Home at Sivasagar and after preliminary treatment, he was taken to Dibrugarh Medical College, where he succumbed to the injuries. So far as the present appellant is concerned, his intention was only to help out the deceased in getting proper and immediate medical treatment. Except this, there is no nexus of the appellant in the commission of alleged murder of the deceased and there is no material against him and no witness has deposed against the appellant.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the Ld. trial Judge was at least required to examine the existence of prima-facie material regarding participation of the appellant in the commission of crime or existence of grave suspicion against him and when there is no prima-facie material of suspicion what to say of grave suspicion, the charge cannot be framed and accordingly the counsel submitted that the charge framed against the appellant by the learned trial Judge is not sustainable as there is no evidence against him and prayed for its discharge.
8. Learned counsel for the responden
