9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1546 - SC - Indian LawsFraming of Charge - Murder - offences punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code - one person(accused) being the pillion rider of the motorcycle hacked Rudresh with a sharp edged and lethal machete on the right side of his neck and fled. HELD THAT - It is settled that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge Under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure in sessions cases(which is akin to Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the Accused has been made out; where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the Accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him - It is thus clear that while examining the discharge application filed Under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record. There are no error in the judgment passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 22nd November, 2018 which calls for our interference - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of charges framed against the Appellant. 2. Applicability of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAP Act). 3. Sufficiency of evidence for framing charges. 4. Judicial review of the trial court's decision to frame charges. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of Charges Framed Against the Appellant: The Appellant was charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, and the UAP Act. The Appellant sought discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), arguing there was no material evidence against him. The trial court dismissed this application, stating that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to frame charges. The High Court affirmed this decision, leading to the present appeal. 2. Applicability of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAP Act): The Appellant contended that neither he nor the other accused were members of any terrorist organization banned under the UAP Act. The prosecution argued that Section 15 of the UAP Act covers acts by individuals and terrorist gangs, and Section 20 does not require an organization to be listed in the schedule for the Act to apply. The trial court and High Court upheld the applicability of the UAP Act based on the evidence presented. 3. Sufficiency of Evidence for Framing Charges: The trial court and High Court both found sufficient grounds for proceeding with the trial based on the evidence, which included: - Frequent telephonic conversations among the accused. - The Appellant's role as the President of the Bengaluru unit of Popular Front of India (PFI). - Seizure of incriminating materials, including a letter listing murders committed by PFI. - Confessions and disclosure reports linking the Appellant to the conspiracy. The courts emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the evidence is not weighed for its probative value but only for the existence of a prima facie case. 4. Judicial Review of the Trial Court's Decision to Frame Charges: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in previous judgments (Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Ors., Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) regarding the scope of Section 227 CrPC. The court held that the trial judge has the power to sift and weigh the evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists. The Supreme Court found no error in the trial court's decision to frame charges and the High Court's affirmation of this decision. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the trial court and High Court. The court noted that its observations were solely for the purpose of disposing of the appeal and should not influence the trial proceedings. The trial court was directed to proceed independently in accordance with the law.
|
