2023 Supreme(All) 1356

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.
Shiv Shankar Soni – Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 4600 Of 2023
Decided On : 02-11-2023

The scope and ambit of Sections 227, 228, 397 and 482 Cr.P.C. and the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under these provisions, particularly in the context of discharge of accused and framing of charges.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 397/401 CR.P.C. - CHARGE FRAMING - DISCHARGE - CONSENSUAL PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIP - SECTION 376 I.P.C. - SECTION 227 CR.P.C. - SECTION 228 CR.P.C. - SECTION 397 CR.P.C. - SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - SCOPE AND AMBIT - POWER OF HIGH COURT - JURISDICTION - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

The revisionist, a railway government servant, was in a consensual physical relationship with the victim, a married woman, for about 4 years without getting himself divorced from his wife. The victim alleged that the revisionist had established physical relationship with her on the promise to marry her and that from their relationship, a boy was born. The revisionist denied the allegations and claimed that the victim had developed the things just to make out the case and to blackmail and exploit him. The Investigating Officer, after collecting evidence, submitted the charge sheet against the revisionist under Sections 323, 504, 376, 313 IPC. The trial court framed charges against the revisionist under Sections 323, 504, 376, 313 IPC. The revisionist filed a criminal revision challenging the framing of charges and the denial of his prayer for discharge.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the revisionist was not entitled to discharge as there was a prima facie case against him for the offences charged. The court further held that the trial court had not erred in framing charges against the revisionist as there was sufficient material on record to show that he was involved in the commission of the alleged offences. The court also held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the trial court's order framing charges against the revisionist.

Issues: 1. Whether the revisionist was entitled to discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether the trial court erred in framing charges against the revisionist under Sections 323, 504, 376, 313 IPC? 3. Whether the High Court erred in interfering with the trial court's order framing charges against the revisionist?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the revisionist was not entitled to discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. as there was a prima facie case against him for the offences charged. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Yogesh Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was held that the term “sufficient ground” in Section 227 Cr.P.C. postulates exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. The court also held that the test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and that if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. 2. The court held that the trial court had not erred in framing charges against the revisionist under Sections 323, 504, 376, 313 IPC as there was sufficient material on record to show that he was involved in the commission of the alleged offences. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, wherein it was held that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The court also held that the test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case and that it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. 3. The court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the trial court's order framing charges against the revisionist. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Gujarat VS. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, wherein it was held that the High Court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and that it is not legally permissible. The court also held that the High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that trial court was dealing with an application for discharge.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the trial court's order framing charges against the revisionist.