9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the validity of taking cognizance of an offence based on suspicion without any material evidence, the importance of material implicating the accused before taking cognizance, and the necessity of quashing the order of cognizance when there is a lack of material evidence. Validity of Taking Cognizance: The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court regarding a Criminal Complaint filed by Suresh Chandra Sinha, which led to the Police instituting an FIR against the appellants under Sections 302, 201, 328, and 120-B IPC. The FIR alleged that the son of the informant was murdered by the accused persons, including the wife of the deceased having an illicit relationship with another accused. However, upon careful review of the record, the Supreme Court found no material evidence against the appellants to support the allegations. The Court emphasized that cognizance cannot be taken merely on suspicion and there must be some material basis for it. The Court highlighted the lack of evidence or material implicating the accused, leading to the quashing of the order taking cognizance. Importance of Material Evidence: The Court stressed the necessity of having at least some material indicating the guilt of the accused before taking cognizance, citing various legal precedents. In this case, the Court found a complete absence of material implicating the accused persons. While acknowledging that adequacy of evidence is not required at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court emphasized the need for some material to implicate the accused. Taking cognizance based solely on suspicion, as done in this case, was deemed inappropriate and could result in the harassment of individuals. The Court highlighted that allegations and suspicions alone cannot form the basis for conviction, emphasizing the importance of concrete material evidence in criminal proceedings. Quashing of Cognizance Order: Due to the lack of material evidence implicating the accused, the Supreme Court quashed the order dated 12.4.2005 taking cognizance of the offence. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Court's decision to quash the order of cognizance was based on the fundamental principle that cognizance cannot be taken solely on suspicion without any material basis. This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of substantial evidence in legal proceedings to prevent unjust harassment and ensure fair treatment of the accused.
|
