1977 (8) TMI 152 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the respondent will be able to prove his defence at the final stage of the trial may not be of much consequence. Surely the prosecution will have to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt? Held that - The High Court has enumerated three circumstances in its impugned order. We may just add and that is only for the purpose of a cursory observation for deciding the matter at this stage that the story of assault on Tara Devi by the respondent a day prior to the occurrence is perhaps sought to be proved by the evidence of Chandreshwar Singh the informant and it seems he would also try to say rightly or wrongly that at the time of the said assault the respondent had given her a threat to kill her. The High Court felt persuaded to take the view that the three circumstantial facts even if proved would not be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and then added There may be strong suspicion against the opposite party but the three circumstances which I have just mentioned above cannot be said to be incompatible with the defence of the accused. The said observation of the High Court is not quite apposite in the background of the law which we have enunciated above with reference to the provisions of sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Appeal allowed - we set aside the impugned orders of the High Court.

Summary

Issues:
- Discharge of accused under sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- Standard of proof required at the initial stage of trial
- Evaluation of circumstantial evidence in determining guilt

Analysis:

The judgment by the Supreme Court involved the appeal of a Professor of Economics who was accused of murdering his wife. The case started with the wife being found burning in the kitchen, leading to the lodging of a First Information Report against the professor. The Additional Sessions Judge initially discharged the accused due to insufficient grounds for trial. However, the State of Bihar appealed this decision, leading to the High Court dismissing the revision and the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court emphasized the distinction between the initial stage of trial under sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the final stage of determining guilt. At the initial stage, the Court is not required to meticulously judge the evidence but to consider if there is a strong suspicion of the accused's guilt. The judgment referenced previous decisions to highlight that the test is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not for conviction.

The judgment also discussed the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in determining guilt. In this case, the prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence due to the lack of direct eyewitness testimony. The Court criticized the Trial Judge for delving too deeply into the medical evidence and emphasized the need for stricter proof when relying on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Sessions Court, directing that appropriate charges be framed against the accused, and the trial proceed further in accordance with the law. The decision highlighted the importance of following the correct legal procedures and standards of proof at each stage of the trial, ensuring that the accused receives a fair and just process.