Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.L. UNTWALIA AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ
State of Bihar, Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Singh, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1977,
D/- 2-8-1977.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The initial stage of framing a charge under Sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code involves assessing whether there is sufficient ground to proceed with the trial. At this stage, the court is not required to meticulously evaluate the truth, veracity, or effect of the evidence proposed by the prosecution, nor to consider the probable defense of the accused (!) .
The court must consider the record and submissions of both parties and then decide whether to discharge the accused under Section 227 if there are no sufficient grounds, or to proceed to frame a charge under Section 228 if there is a reasonable presumption of the accused's involvement in an offense (!) .
The standard at this initial stage is a prima facie assessment, not a final verdict of guilt or innocence. A strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offense is sufficient to proceed, provided the evidence proposed by the prosecution, if accepted and unrebutted, can establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at the trial stage (!) .
The presumption of innocence applies to the trial's final judgment, but at the framing stage, it is only a preliminary consideration. The court does not need to weigh the evidence in detail or assess its credibility at this point (!) .
The decision to proceed under Section 228 (frame a charge) is appropriate when there is a strong suspicion supported by evidence that, if accepted, could establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, if the evidence fails to do so, the case should not proceed (!) .
The court's role at this stage is to determine whether there is a sufficient prima facie case to justify a trial, not to decide on guilt or innocence. The ultimate proof must be established during the trial, where the evidence is scrutinized thoroughly (!) .
The assessment of circumstantial evidence and the interpretation of facts must be made carefully, considering whether the evidence, if accepted, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The court should avoid prematurely dismissing the case based on incomplete evaluation of the evidence (!) .
The court should avoid detailed references to medical or forensic reports at the charge framing stage unless they are essential for establishing a prima facie case. The core focus remains on whether the evidence, as proposed, can reasonably support a presumption of guilt (!) .
Ultimately, if there is a reasonable basis to believe that the accused committed the offense, the court is obligated to frame charges and allow the trial to proceed, ensuring that the accused's right to a fair trial is maintained (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with specific legal questions.
Judgment
UNTWALIA, J. - The respondent in this appeal by special leave is a Professor of Economics in Munshi Singh College. Motihari in the State of Bihar. At about 3.00 A.M. on the 26th of November, 1973, Smt. Tara Devi, wife of the respondent, was found burning in the kitchen of his house. A hulla was raised. Chandreshwar Prasad Singh, brother of Tara Devi, who is a Professor of Botany in the said College and lives nearby came to the scene of occurrence. It is said he found the respondent and his brother standing near the burning body of Tara Devi but not taking any steps to extinguish the fire. Tara Devi died apparently as a result of the extensive burn injuries on her person. A First Information Report was lodged by Chandreshwar Prasad Singh at the Police Station charging the respondent for having committed the offence under Ss. 302 and 201 of the Penal Code. Eventually charge-sheet was submitted against him by the police and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial of the respondent under S. 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - hereinafter called the Code.
2. When the case was opened in the Court of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge at Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 66/1975 by the Additional Public Prosecutor in accordance with S. 226 of the Code, a plea was raised on behalf of the respondent that there was not any sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial against him and he should be discharged in accordance with S. 227. The Addl. Sessions Judge accepted the plea and discharged the accused by his order dated April 30, 1975. The State of Bihar - the appellant in this appeal, went in revision before the Patna High Court to assail the order aforesaid of the Sessions Court. The High Court by its order dated the 18th February, 1976 dismissed the revision. Hence this appeal.
3. It is neither necessary nor advisable for us to mention in any great detail the facts of the prosecution case against the respondent or refer to all the materials and the evidence which may be produced by the prosecutor when a trial proceeds in the Sessions Court. Unnecessary details in that regard have got to be avoided so that it may not prejudice either the prosecution case of the appellant or the defence of the respondent. Since for the brief reasons to be stated hereinafter we are going to set aside the orders of the Courts below and direct the trial to proceed against the respondent we would like to caution that nothing which may have to be said in support of our order in this judgment is meant and should be understood to prejudice in the least the case of either party at the trial.
4. Under S. 226 of the Code while opening the case for the prosecution the prosecutor has got to describe the charge against the accused and state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter comes at the initial stage the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. The Judge has to pass thereafter an order either under S. 227 or S. 228 of the Code. If "the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing", so enjoined by S. 227. If, on the other hand, "the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which.
...... ....... ...... ......
(b) in exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused", as provided in S. 228. Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
