2019 (12) TMI 1669 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - framing of charges - non-application of judicial mind by the learned trial judge - HELD THAT - In the present case, upon hearing the parties and considering the allegations in the charge sheet, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds for presuming that the Accused has committed the offence punishable Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The order dated 12.12.2018 framing the charges is not a detailed order. For framing the charges Under Section 228 Code of Criminal Procedure, the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen - As held in KANTI BHADRA SHAH AND ANR. VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL 2000 (1) TMI 989 - SUPREME COURT , while exercising power Under Section 228 Code of Criminal Procedure, the judge is not required record his reasons for framing the charges against the Accused. Upon hearing the parties and based upon the allegations and taking note of the allegations in the charge sheet, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused and framed the charges against the Accused-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. While so, the High Court was not right in interfering with the order of the trial court framing the charges against the Accused-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and the High Court, in our view, erred in quashing the charges framed against the Accused. The impugned order cannot therefore be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of charges framed by the trial court.
2. Application of judicial mind in framing charges.
3. Prima facie case against the accused.
4. Scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of charges framed by the trial court:
The appeal challenges the High Court's decision to quash the charges framed by the trial court against the accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court quashed the charges on the grounds that the trial court failed to apply its judicial mind while framing the charges.

2. Application of judicial mind in framing charges:
The High Court held that while framing charges, the court should apply judicial mind and provide concise reasons for framing charges. The trial court, in this case, was found to have failed in applying its judicial mind, leading to the quashing of charges by the High Court.

3. Prima facie case against the accused:
The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court needs to see if there is a prima facie case against the accused. The allegations in the charge sheet suggested that the accused were last seen with the deceased, did not inform the family or police about the dead body, and had previous quarrels with the deceased, indicating a motive. These circumstances were sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused.

4. Scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
The Supreme Court discussed the scope of Sections 227 and 228 CrPC. Section 227 deals with the discharge of the accused if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, while Section 228 deals with framing charges if there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offense. The court held that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to hold an elaborate inquiry but only to see if there is a prima facie case against the accused. The satisfaction of the court regarding the existence of the offense's constituents is necessary for framing charges.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the charges framed by the trial court. The court held that the trial court's decision to frame charges was based on sufficient grounds and that the High Court erred in quashing the charges. The matter was remanded back to the trial court for proceeding in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that at the stage of framing charges, the court only needs to see if there is a prima facie case against the accused and not to conduct an elaborate inquiry. The High Court's decision to quash the charges was found to be erroneous, and the trial court's order framing charges was restored.