Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 590

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
Ram Prakash Chadha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2395 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 6687 of 2023
Decided on : 15-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pallavi Pratap, AOR, Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv., Ms. Prachi Pratap, Adv., Dr. Prashant Pratap, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajat Singh, AOR, Mr. Sarthak Chandra, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Discharge of accused – At stage of consideration of such application for discharge, defence case or material, if produced at all by accused, cannot be looked at all – Court has to proceed with assumption that materials brought on record by prosecution are true.
(2) Criminal conspiracy – Sine qua non for offence of criminal conspiracy is agreement to commit offence – A few bits here and a few bits there, on which prosecution may rely, are not sufficient to connect accused with commission of crime of criminal conspiracy.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Sections 227 and 209 – Discharge of accused – Expression ‘the record of the case and documents submitted therewith’ refers only to the materials produced by prosecution and not by accused – In view of Section 209, Cr.P.C., to know what exactly are documents falling within said expression Sections 207 and 208, Cr.P.C., are also to be looked into – At stage of consideration of such application for discharge, defence case or material, if produced at all by accused, cannot be looked at all – Court has to proceed with assumption that materials brought on record by prosecution are true, and evaluate the materials to find out whether facts taken at their face value disclose existence of ingredients constituting offence – At this stage, only probative value of materials has to be gone into and court is not expected to go deep into the matter to hold a mini-trial. (Paras 3, 12, 13 and 20)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 227 – Discharge of accused – Stage of Section 227, Cr.P.C., is equally crucial and determinative to both prosecution and accused – It will be within jurisdiction of Court concerned to sift and weigh evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against accused concerned has been made out – However, chances of going beyond permissible jurisdiction under Section 227, Cr.P.C., and entering into scope of power under Section 232, Cr.P.C., cannot be ruled out – Question of framing charge would arise only in a case where court upon such exercise satisfies itself about prima facie case revealing from “the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith” against accused concerned – Normally, Court is to record his reasons only for discharging accused at stage of Section 227, Cr.P.C. – However, when application for discharge is filed under Section 227, Cr.P.C., Court concerned is bound to disclose reason(s), though, not in detail, for finding sufficient ground for rejecting application. (Paras 19, 21 and 22)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Sections 227, 228, 232 and 482 – Murder and conspiracy – Common intention – Dismissal of application for discharge – Strong suspicion in order to be sufficient to frame charge should be based on material brought on record by prosecution and should not be based on supposition, suspicions and conjectures – Implication of appellant in crime is with aid of Section 120B and Section 34, IPC – Apart from using expression “criminal conspiracy” there is absolute absence of anything whatsoever in final report as also in statement of any of witnesses, suggesting that appellant conspired with other accused – Agreement referred to in Section 120A, IPC may be expressed or implied or in part express and in part implied – However, no record of case or documents submitted therewith carry such allegation/accusation against appellant – If case of prosecution and materials produced along with charge are taken as true, they would only suggest that deceased was under control of police in Police Station – Mere fact that rejection of application of appellant for discharge is concurrent cannot be a reason for confirming impugned order of High Court confirming order of Trial Court – Impugned judgment set aside and appellant stands discharged. (Paras 15, 24, 28, 32, 33 and 35)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120A and 120B – Criminal conspiracy – Sine qua non for offence of criminal conspiracy is agreement to commit offence – It consists of agreement between two or more persons to commit criminal offence, irrespective of further consideration whether or not offence is actually committed as the very fact of conspiracy constitutes offence – Conspiracy is hatched in privacy and not in secrecy and such it would rarely be possible to establish conspiracy by direct evidence – A few bits here and a few bits there, on which prosecution may rely, are not sufficient to connect accused with commission of crime of criminal conspiracy – To constitute even accusation of criminal conspiracy, first and foremost, there must at least be accusation of meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal in itself, by illegal means. (Paras 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
Dismissal of application filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against dismissal of application for discharge by appellant under Section 227 Cr.P.C., as per Order dated 21.04.2023 by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is under challenge in this appeal.
Findings of Court:
As a necessary sequel, application filed by appellant under Section 227, Cr.P.C., dated 04.04.2007 for discharge in Crime No.351/1993 filed in Sessions Trial No.1532/2005 before Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI), Prevention of Corruption Act U.P., East Ghaziabad is allowed and appellant stands discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. Ravikumar, J.

The dismissal of application under Section 482, No.21739 of 2007, essentially, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.PC') against dismissal of an application for discharge by the appellant herein under Section 227 Cr.PC, as per order dated 21.04.2023 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant moved the said application for discharge in Crime No.371/1993, the charge in essence there is about custodial death of one Ram Kishore who happened to be cashier/accountant of the appellant, which in fact was registered based on the complaint of the appellant.

2. Heard, learned senior counsel Siddharth Dave appearing for the appellant and Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Facts leading to the case:

3. Before narrating the facts, we should bear in mind that exercise of power under Section 227, Cr.PC, is legally permissible only by considering 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith'. Therefore, necessarily, the question is what is the meaning of the expression 'the record of the case and documents submitted therewith'? According to us, it refers only to the materials produced by the prosecution and not by the accused. A three-Judge Bench of this Court considered this question in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568. It was held that the said expression as postulated in Section 227, Cr.PC, relate to the case and the documents referred to under Section 209, Cr.PC. Section 209, Cr.PC, reads thus:-

"209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it. -

(a) commit, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made;

(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;

(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence;

(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session."

In view of Section 209, Cr.PC, as extracted above, to know what exactly are the documents falling within the said expression Sections 207 and 208, Cr.PC, are also to be looked into.

4. We referred to the provisions under Section 227 and the decision in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra) only to conclude that even for the purpose of referring to the facts leading to the case, as also for consideration of the contentions for the purpose of Section 227, Cr.PC, we cannot refer to the grounds carrying or referring to the case of the appellant-accused, in view of the aforesaid provisions of law and position of law, requiring to confine such consideration only with reference to the materials produced by the prosecution.

5. Now, we will refer to the facts leading to the case, as per the prosecution and as per the materials falling within the purview of Section 227, Cr.PC.

6. The appellant, who is the owner of Goodwill Enterprises dealing with wood, registered Case Crime No.351 of 1993 under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') 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 15.07.1993. On their way back from Meerut, after collecting such business proceeds, they stopped the car in front of Ginni Devi School in Modi Nagar and Ram Kishore w