2010 (1) TMI 1097 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellant established sufficient ground for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC? Whether the Trial Judge as well as the High Court committed any error in rejecting the claim of the appellant? Held that - In the case on hand, though, the learned Trial Judge has not assigned detailed reasons for dismissing the discharge petition filed under Section 227, it is clear from his order that after consideration of the relevant materials charge had been framed for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and because of the same, he dismissed the discharge petition. After evaluating the materials produced by the prosecution and after considering the probability of the case, the Judge being satisfied by the existence of sufficient grounds against the appellant and another accused framed a charge. Whether the materials at the hands of the prosecution are sufficient or not are matters for trial. At this stage, it cannot be claimed that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant and discharge is the only remedy. Further, whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal is also immaterial. All these relevant aspects have been carefully considered by the High Court and it rightly affirmed the order passed by the Trial Judge dismissing the discharge petition filed by A3-appellant herein. We fully agree with the said conclusion.Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant established sufficient ground for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC.
2. Whether the Trial Judge and the High Court committed any error in rejecting the appellant's claim.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the appellant established sufficient ground for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC.

The appellant, a retired IPS officer, sought discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, which allows a judge to discharge an accused if there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against them. The appellant argued that there were no allegations of a fake encounter from 1970 until 1998. In 1998, reports surfaced alleging that the killing of Naxalite Varghese was a fake encounter, leading to several writ petitions and an investigation by the CBI. The appellant contended that the confessional statements made by Constable Ramachandran Nair, who had implicated the appellant, were inadmissible since Nair was deceased and there could be no joint trial. The appellant relied on Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states that a confession made by one accused can only be used against another if they are being tried jointly for the same offense. The Supreme Court noted that the admissibility and probative value of the confessional statements and other evidence are matters for evaluation during the trial. The Court held that the materials presented, including statements from various witnesses, required sufficient scrutiny at the hands of the Trial Judge.

Issue 2: Whether the Trial Judge and the High Court committed any error in rejecting the appellant's claim.

The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 227 of the CrPC, which confers special power on the Judge to discharge an accused if there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against them. The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the judge is not required to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal but must determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The Court cited precedents, including State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh and Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, which clarified that strong suspicion could be sufficient for framing a charge. The Court found that the Trial Judge, after considering the relevant materials, had framed a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and dismissed the discharge petition. The High Court had affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts, stating that whether the materials are sufficient for conviction is a matter for trial.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, directing the Trial Judge to dispose of the case expeditiously and allowing the appellant to file a petition for dispensing with his personal appearance, considering his age. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial should proceed uninfluenced by its observations.