2018 (8) TMI 2147 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court exercising its revisional power overturned the verdict (refusal to discharge) and thought it proper to order for discharge - Appreciation of evidence for discharge undertaken by High Court - HELD THAT - Appreciation of evidence is an exercise that the High Court, could not have undertaken at this stage of consideration of the application for discharge. But this is what precisely what High Court appears to have been done. While there can be no dispute on the proposition that has been laid by this Court in Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi 2008 (4) TMI 803 - SUPREME COURT what has happened in the present case is that the statements recorded in the course of investigation had been weighed, analyzed and appreciated. In a situation where the said evidence is yet to be tested by cross-examination and the veracity of either of the two versions is yet to be established, it cannot be said that there are two possible views of the matter. The observations of this Court in Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi will, therefore, not assist the accused. The power exercised by the High Court to order for discharge was premature. Consequently, the order of the High Court ought to be set aside - The appeals are, consequently, allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discharge of accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Evaluation of evidence by trial court and High Court.
3. Application of judicial mind in determining a prima facie case.
4. Premature exercise of power by the High Court in ordering discharge.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard appeals arising from a trial court's refusal to discharge accused facing a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, using revisional power, ordered for discharge, leading to the appeals. The prosecution presented two sets of evidence, including statements by the deceased naming the accused. The High Court, however, found the appellant's statement less trustworthy compared to others. The Court noted that the High Court's evaluation of evidence at the discharge stage was improper.

The Court referred to a judgment emphasizing the need for a judicial mind to determine if a prima facie case exists against the accused. It highlighted that at the discharge stage, the judge should assess if a conviction is reasonably possible based on the unrebutted evidence. In this case, the High Court prematurely weighed and analyzed evidence that was yet to be tested through cross-examination, making it improper to discharge the accused.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's premature exercise of power in ordering discharge was incorrect. The Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeals. It clarified that its interference did not indicate an opinion on the merits of the case, which would be assessed during the trial proceedings.