Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
Kabibal Beevi & Another – Petitioner
Versus
State by the Assistant Commissioner of Police – Respondent
CRL.R.C. No. 207 of 2011 & M.P. Nos. 1 of 2011 & 1 of 2012
Decided on: 24-03-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: P. Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor.
At the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient for convicting the accused, but to find out whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision Case - Discharge petition under Section 227 CrPC - Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 239 and Section 240 of the CrPC, and the legal principles established in the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, regarding the framing of charges and discharge of the accused. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient for convicting the accused, but to find out whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed. The court also referred to several other decisions to support its approach to framing charges and discharging the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The police initially registered a case as Accidental Fire under Section 174 CrPC, which was later converted to charges under Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 IPC. The petitioners filed a discharge petition under Section 227 CrPC, claiming innocence based on contradictory dying declarations and lack of incriminating evidence. The prosecution opposed the discharge, arguing that there were sufficient materials to proceed with the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were prima facie materials available to frame the charges against the accused under Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 IPC. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, it is not required to appreciate evidence for convicting the accused, but to find a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the materials available were prima facie sufficient to frame the charges or to proceed with the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles established in the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, emphasizing that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient for convicting the accused, but to find out whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that there were prima facie materials available to frame the charges against the accused under Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 IPC.
1. Material on record discloses that initially, police has registered a case in Crime No.286 of 2008 as Accidental Fire under Section 174 CrPC. Thereafter, police has filed a final report under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC and charges have been framed in SC.No.128 of 2010 on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (FAC), Chennai. Petitioners have filed CrlMP No.4698 of 2010 under Section 227 CrPC to discharge them from the charge. Prosecution has filed their objections. Thereafter, considering the rival submissions, vide order dated 25.01.2011, the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (FAC), Chennai, in CrlMP No.4698 of 2010 in S.C.No.128 of 2010, has dismissed the discharge petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed in the year 2011.
2. Record of proceedings further shows that initially, Mr.M.Radha Krishnan and Mr.P.Pugalenthi, Advocates, at Door No.134, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai, have filed their memo of appearance in Criminal Revision Case.
3. Record of proceedings further shows that when the revision petition came up for hearing on 17.02.2011, the Honourable Mr. Justice K.N.Basha, has ordered as follows:
“Post the matter before the concerned learned Judge after getting appropriate orders from My Lord The Honourable Chief Justice”
At that stage, CrlRC.No.207 of 2011 was not admitted. Thereafter, after getting orders from My Lord The Honourable Chief Justice, the revision case has been posted before the Honourable Ms. Justice K.B.K.Vasuki.
4. Record of proceedings shows that on 15.03.2011, the Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side), High Court, Madras, has requested the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (FAC), Chennai, to send the entire records in CrlMP No.4698 of 2010 in S.C.No.128 of 2010 and after receiving the same, the matter will be listed before this Court.
5. Record of proceedings further shows that when the matter came up for hearing on 24.02.2011, both the learned counsel on record were present. Office had been directed to secure the records from the Lower Court for hearing the revision on 10.03.2011.
6. Record of proceedings shows that revision case has been listed on 05.10.2012. On 05.10.2012, at request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, case has been posted for arguments on 11.10.2012 and thereafter, the matter has been listed on 12.10.2012. On the same day, this Court has ordered as follows:
“Adjourned to 01.11.2012 for disposal or for dismissal.”
7. Thereafter, on 02.11.2012, The Honourable Ms. Justice K.B.K.Vasuki, has recorded as follows:
This Court is not inclined to take up the case due to inevitabale reasons. The office is directed to post the case before some other Court after obtaining appropriate order from The Honourable the Chief Justice.
8. After obtaining orders from My Lord The Honourable Chief Justice, the Criminal Revision case, has been posted before the Honourable Mr. Justice B.Rajendran. Record of proceedings shows that on 04.12.2012, on request, the matter has been adjourned by two weeks. Thereafter, on 18.12.2012, when the matter came up for hearing, this Court has directed the Registry to post the revision on 18.01.2013. On 18.01.2013, this Court has recorded as follows:
“Post after one week as the last chance.”
9. Record of proceedings shows that on 28.01.2013, on the request of the learned counsel for both sides, the matter has been posted next week. Record of proceedings further shows that when the revision petition came up for hearing on 03.12.2014, the Honourable Mr. Justice C.T.Selvam has directed the Registry to post the matter on 09.12.2014. Thereafter, it has been adjourned on several occasions.
10. Record of proceedings further shows that Mr.M.Radhakrishnan and Mr.P.Pugalenthi, Advocates, at D.No.34, Thambu Street, Chennai, initially engaged by the petitioners, have given their change of vakalat. Subsequently on 10.12.2014, Mr.J.C.Durairaj, Enrol.No.Ms.51/1987 and Ms.S.Annakkodi, Enr
