Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Bhawna Bai – Appellant
Versus
Ghanshyam And Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1820 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6964 of 2019)
Decided on : 03-12-2019
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 227 and 228 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Discharge of accused – As per allegations in charge sheet, deceased was last seen alive in company of accused-respondents – Though circumstances alleged in charge-sheet are to be established during trial by adducing evidence, allegations in charge-sheet show a prima facie case against accused-respondents – Circumstances alleged by prosecution indicate that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against accused – At the time of framing charges, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage – At the stage of framing charge, court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused – While evaluating materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against accused is to be seen – Judge is not required record his reasons for framing charges against accused – High Court was not right in interfering with order of trial court framing charges against accused-respondents under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and High Court erred in quashing charges framed against accused – Impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside – Impugned judgment passed by High Court set aside –Sessions Trial Case restored and Second Additional Sessions Judge shall proceed with matter in accordance with law.(Paras 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises out of impugned judgment and final order dated 25.02.2019 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore Bench in Criminal Revision No.402 of 2019 in and by which the High Court has quashed the charges framed by trial court/Additional Sessions Judge against respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2.
Findings of Court:
High Court was not right in interfering with the order of the trial court framing charges against accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and High Court erred in quashing the charges framed against the accused. The impugned order cannot therefore be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and final order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore Bench in Criminal Revision No.402 of 2019 in and by which the High Court has quashed the charges framed by the trial court/Additional Sessions Judge against respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2.
3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:-
On 24.12.2015, the husband of the complainant-Gopal Saran at about 06.00 pm went saying to prepare food as he is going outside to plough the field and shall return by 09.00-10.00 pm. Even by 12.00 mid night, Gopal Saran did not return home; then his wife Bhawna Bai, appellant herein tried to contact him over his mobile; but he did not receive the call. The appellant informed her father-in-law who tried to search the deceased and there was no information about the deceased. On the next morning at about 08.00 am, the appellant-complainant and her family members came to know from the neighbours that Gopal Saran was lying in the tank/hose in the field of the first respondent-Ghanshyam. The appellant has alleged that when she tried to approach her husband then Ganesh s/o Mohanlal Kushwah prevented her going near her husband and locked her in a room and did not allow her to see her husband. The dead body of Gopal Saran was taken to government hospital. The appellant-complainant alleged that without informing her, post-mortem of her husband was conducted. Merg No.94 of 2015 was registered for investigation under Section 174 Crl.P.C.; but no case was registered against any person.
4. On 31.12.2015, the appellant made a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Khargaon and in spite of the same, no case was registered. Thereafter, the complainant-appellant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Kasrawad under Section 156(3) Crl.P.C. on 12.04.2016. The learned ACJM accepted the complaint and directed the Officer-in-Charge, P.S. Kasrawad to register the FIR under Section 302 IPC and proceed with the investigation. FIR was registered in Crime No.145 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Challenging the direction of ACJM to register a FIR, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleswar in Criminal Revision No.300051 of 2016. The said revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2016.
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 have prayed for anticipatory bail and the same was dismissed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, West Nimad, Mandleswar vide order dated 10.09.2018. Being aggrieved, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed appeal before the High Court and the High Court had granted anticipatory bail to them vide order dated 19.09.2018. Against the grant of anticipatory bail, the appellant-complainant has filed SLP(Crl.) Diary No.39785/2018 before the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court by order dated 14.12.2018 has issued notice. In the meanwhile, charge sheet has been filed against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on 26.09.2018. Upon hearing the prosecution and also the respondents-accused, vide order dated 12.12.2018, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleswar has found that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and framed the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
6. Challenging the order of framing charges, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed revision before the High Court. Holding that, while framing charges, the court should apply the judicial mind and should give reasons in concise manner for framing charges and that the trial court has failed to apply its mind while framing charges, the High Court vide impugned order dated 25.02.2019 has quashed the charges against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and discha
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
