Back
2001 Supreme(Ker) 450
Judges : T.M.HASSAN PILLAI
Vijayamma - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : Crl RP No 1023 of 2001
Decided On : 10/04/2001
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: B. Radhakrishnan(Thottathil) & M.R. Rajesh, Advocates. For the Respondent: Sujith Mathew Jose (Public Prosecutor).
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 203, 204, 200, 202 – Allegations – Evidence – Findings of – Held, Standard of proof and judgment, which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing charges. – At the stage of S. 202 or 204 Cr.P.C., if there is prima facie evidence in support of the allegations in the complaint that will be a sufficient ground for issuing process to the accused. – Unless the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case. – All that the Magistrate has to do at the stage of Ss. 203 and 204 Cr.P.C. is to see whether, on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry under Ss. 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., there is prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused. – He has to see whether or not there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" against the accused. – Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously at that stage as if he were the trial court. – Magistrate is to adopt in scrutinizing the evidence the standard which is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing charges. – It is also settled law that even at the stage of framing charges the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the complainant produces or proposes to adduce at the trial, is not to be meticulously judged.
T.M. Hassan Pillai, J.
The revision petitioner filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal and the allegation made therein is that there is an ancient pathway having a width of 1 1/2 metres passing along the northern side of accuseds' property and recently the local people and the Panchayat attempted to widen the width of that pathway. That attempt was obstructed by the accused persons. The accused persons entertained suspicion that it was at the instance of the complaint and her husband the Panchayat and the local people made attempt to widen the pathway and they were on bitter inimical terms with her and her family members. On 28.1.2000 while she(petitioner) was returning after viewing Television at about 8.40 p.m. ie. When she reached the boundary separting her property from accuseds' propery 1st accused wrongfully restrained her asking her and she was attacked with the handle of a spade. She was beaten with the handle of a spade on her shoulder and chest. On receiving the beating she fell down and the 2nd accused caught hold of her tuft of hair and snatched away the gold chain (weighted 1 1/2 sovereigns) worn by her. She cried aloud and on hearing her outcry her husband rushed to the spot. On seeing her husband the accused persons fled away.
2. Sworn statement of the complainant was taken by the learned Magistrate and in support of her case the complaint examined her husband as a witness. She also got examined on her side the doctor who exmined her and marked Ext.P1 injury certificate. It is evident from the injury certificate produced that the complainant sustained the injuries noted therein on the alleged date of occurrence of the incident.
3. The question that is to be considered is whther the order impugned dismissing the complaint under S.203 Cr.P.C. is liable to be interfered with invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Before proceeding to consider that question the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions rendered is to be borne in mind. Responsibility and duty lies on the magistracy to find before issuing process to an accused whether the concerned accused should be legally responsible for the offence charged for . Only after the Magistraeis satisfied that the law casts liability or creates offence against the juristic persons or the persons impleaded, process is to be issued. The settled legal position is that at that stage the court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising direction and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complainant as Vendetta to harass the person needlessly. Prime object of criminal justice is vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society. It should not be the means to wreak personal vengeance (Punjab National Bank &Ors. V. Surendra Prasad Singh, JT 1992 (3) SC 46).
5.Under Section 200 Cr.P.C. a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then he has to examie the complainant and his witnesses, if any, to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass. In order to find out whether there is sufficient ground or not for proceeding such examination is provided. The words used under Section 203 are 'sufficient ground' and that words have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction.
6. Referring to the scheme of Sections 200 and 203 Cr.P.C. in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal & Anr, [ 1973(3) SCC 753), the Supreme Court explained the legal position thus:
"This Section does not say that a regular trial of adjudging truth or otherwise of the person complained against should take
