2022 (7) TMI 1447 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - Homicide - framing of charges - marshalling of evidence on record - unlawful assembly an assault on the appellant and his family members after trespassing into the residential property of the appellant - accused persons are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased (wife of the appellant herein) and the daughter in law and both were beaten up causing injuries - High Court thought fit to affirm the order passed by the trial court discharging the accused persons of the offence of murder. Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the order passed by the trial court discharging the accused persons of the offence of murder? HELD THAT - The purpose of framing a charge is to intimate to the accused the clear unambiguous and precise nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial - The case may be a sessions case a warrant case or a summons case the point is that a prima facie case must be made out before a charge can be framed. Basically there are three pairs of sections in the CrPC. Those are Sections 227 and 228 relating to the sessions trial; Section 239 and 240 relatable to trial of warrant cases and Sections 245(1) and (2) with respect to trial of summons case - Section 226 of the CrPC over a period of time has gone in oblivion. Our understanding of the provision of Section 226 of the CrPC is that before the Court proceeds to frame the charge against the accused the Public Prosecutor owes a duty to give a fair idea to the Court as regards the case of the prosecution. his Court in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another 1978 (11) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT considered the scope of enquiry a judge is required to make while considering the question of framing of charges. After an exhaustive survey of the case law on the point this Court held that in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth piece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. In the case of Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency 2019 (7) TMI 1546 - SUPREME COURT this Court in so many words has expressed that the trial court is not expected or supposed to hold a mini trial for the purpose of marshalling the evidence on record. It is evident that the trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution - Undoubtedly apart from the material that is placed before the Court by the prosecution in the shape of final report in terms of Section 173 of CrPC the Court may also rely upon any other evidence or material which is of sterling quality and has direct bearing on the charge laid before it by the prosecution. In the present case the trial court could be said to have conducted a mini trial while marshalling the evidence on record. The trial court thought fit to discharge the accused persons from the offence of murder and proceeded to frame charge for the offence of culpable homicide under Section 304 of the IPC by only taking into consideration the medical evidence on record. The trial court as well as the High Court got persuaded by the fact that the cause of death of the deceased as assigned in the post mortem report being the cardio respiratory failure the same cannot be said to be having any nexus with the alleged assault that was laid on the deceased. Such approach of the trial court is not correct and cannot be countenanced in law - The post mortem repot can be used only to corroborate his statement under Section 157 or to refresh his memory under Section 159 or to contradict his statement in the witness box under Section 145 of the Evidence Act 1872. A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of the symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court although not an expert may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the expert s opinion because once the expert s opinion is accepted it is not the opinion of the medical officer but of the Court. Whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part II IPC could have been decided by the trial court only after the evaluation of the entire oral evidence that may be led by the prosecution as well as by the defence if any comes on record. Ultimately upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record at the end of the trial the trial court may take one view or the other i.e. whether it is a case of murder or case of culpable homicide. But at the stage of framing of the charge the trial court could not have reached to such a conclusion merely relying upon the port mortem report on record. The High Court also overlooked such fundamental infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and proceeded to affirm the same. Once the trial court decides to discharge an accused person from the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and proceeds to frame the lesser charge for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC the prosecution thereafter would not be in a position to lead any evidence beyond the charge as framed. To put it otherwise the prosecution will be thereafter compelled to proceed as if it has now to establish only the case of culpable homicide and not murder - in the facts of the present case it would be more prudent to permit the prosecution to lead appropriate evidence whatever it is worth in accordance with its original case as put up in the chargesheet. Such approach of the trial court at times may prove to be more rationale and prudent. The orders passed by the High Court and the trial court are hereby set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the order passed by the trial court discharging the accused persons of the offence of murder.
2. The legal principles guiding the framing of charges and the discharge of the accused.
3. The evaluation of evidence at the stage of framing charges.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of High Court's Order Affirming Discharge of Accused from Murder Charge:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in affirming the trial court's decision to discharge the accused from the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC and instead frame charges under Section 304 IPC. The trial court had concluded that the medical evidence, particularly the post-mortem report indicating "cardio respiratory failure" as the cause of death, did not support the charge of murder. The High Court upheld this view, noting the lack of serious injuries on the deceased and attributing the death to cardiac arrest rather than the alleged assault.

2. Legal Principles on Framing of Charges and Discharge:
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the framing of charges and discharge as laid down in various judgments. It emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court must determine whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, based on the materials presented by the prosecution. The court should not conduct a mini-trial or meticulously evaluate the evidence as it would at the stage of final judgment. The purpose of framing a charge is to inform the accused of the precise nature of the accusations against them.

3. Evaluation of Evidence at the Stage of Framing Charges:
The Supreme Court criticized the trial court for conducting what amounted to a mini-trial by heavily relying on the post-mortem report to discharge the accused from the murder charge. It clarified that the post-mortem report alone does not constitute substantive evidence and that the nexus between the cause of death and the alleged assault should be determined through oral evidence from eyewitnesses and the medical officer. The court highlighted that the prosecution should be allowed to present its case fully, including expert testimony, to establish whether the death was linked to the assault.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the trial court, directing the trial court to pass a fresh order framing charges in accordance with the observations made. It emphasized that the trial court should allow the prosecution to present all relevant evidence and that the final determination of whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 IPC should be made after evaluating the entire evidence at the end of the trial. The court clarified that its observations were prima facie and limited to the issue of the legality of the discharge order.