Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1120

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
Khoda Budh, S/o Sh. Khyoda Tukh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of AP and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.Rev.P.15 of 2022
Decided on : 31-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : T. Mosu, R. Gyamar, Y. Lombi, N. Basar, Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. P.P. (A.P); Mr. L. Perme,
For the Respondents: K. Posi, D. Tamut, T. Tahar, T. Mary, T. Amerjit, T. Timba

IMPORTANT POINT
The Court clarified that at the charge stage, evidence must be evaluated at face value, and the judge cannot dismiss witness statements without proper grounds.

Headnote:
Criminal - Discharge of Accused - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 227, 228, 164 - The Court emphasized the necessity of evaluating evidence at face value during charge consideration, rejecting the trial court's premature assessment of witness credibility.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revision petition against the discharge of two accused in a murder case, arguing that there was sufficient evidence against them, particularly from an injured witness who implicated them in the assault.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the trial Court had improperly assessed the evidence at the charge stage, exceeding its jurisdiction by dismissing the witness's statement as unreliable without proper justification.
Issues: Whether the trial Court erred in discharging the accused based on insufficient evidence and whether it improperly evaluated witness credibility at the charge stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that at the charge stage, the judge must only assess whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, without conducting a mini trial or weighing the evidence.
Result: The impugned order discharging the accused was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh consideration of charges.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, representing the respondent No. 1 and Mr. K. Posi, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

2. This application under Sections 397/398/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the applicant, Shri Khoda Budh, impugning the order dated 25.05.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Session Case No. 10/2022, corresponding to Naharlagun Police Case No. 182/2021, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), by which, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were discharged in the above noted Sessions Case.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Criminal Revision Petition, in brief, are as follows:

(i). That on 05.11.2021, the petitioner, Khoda Budh had lodged an F.I.R. before the Office in Charge of Naharlagun Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on that day, in the early morning, at around 3.25 am, one person called him from Tomo Riba Institute of Health and Medical Sciences Hospital (TRIHMS) from the mobile number of the son of the informant, informing him that his son Khyoda Tama has been admitted in the hospital as some unknown persons had brutally assaulted him near Helipad Naharlagun at around 0230 Hours. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that, when the informant rushed to the hospital, he found his son was admitted in the Surgery Ward at TRIHMS. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that on 05.11.2021, at around 0930 Hours, the son of the informant succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant later on came to know that his son was killed by Tanu Chije, San Mosu and Doi Komi.

(ii). On receipt of the F.I.R., Naharlagun Police Case No. 182/2021, was registered under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and investigation was initiated.

(iii). On completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet No. 12/2022, dated 28.01.2022, was laid under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, against Mr. Tanu Chije, Mr. San Mosu (respondent No. 2) and Mr. Doi Komi (respondent No. 3). All the three accused persons including the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein, were arrested during the course of investigation.

(iv). After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, it was registered as Session Case No. 10/2022 and on 25.05.2022, all the accused persons were produced before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, for consideration of charges against them.

(v). On 25.05.2022, the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, by the order, which has been impugned in the instant Criminal Revision Petition, framed charges under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC against the accused No. 1, namely, Tanu Chije.

(vi). However, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, who were the accused Nos. 2 & 3 in the said Session Case, were discharged on the ground of insufficient evidence against them.

4. Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, had erred in discharging the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, in spite of there being a prima facie case against both of them. He has submitted that one of the main witnesses for prosecution side, who was also injured in the altercation, namely, Mr. John Tapin had categorically stated in his statement, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during the course of investigation, that all the three accused had attacked the deceased on the date of the alleged incident and they kept beating him till he went inside the house gate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that one another witness for the prosecution, namely, Ms. Yami Komi Nyogen, has also stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during the course of investigation, that on hearing noise outside the house, she rushed to the spot and saw that Tanu and John were fighting with each other outside the house gate. She