2008 (10) TMI 742 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

The Supreme Court of India considered an appeal against a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The case involved the burning of a dumb lady on the land of the respondents. The deceased made two dying declarations before her death, identifying the respondents as the perpetrators. The High Court allowed the revision application filed by the accused, questioning the order of the Sessions Judge who refused to discharge them. The High Court opined that the deceased was both deaf and dumb, leading to the acceptance of one dying declaration over the other.The key issues considered in the judgment were:1. Whether the High Court erred in appreciating evidence at the stage of framing charges under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Whether the High Court's preference of one dying declaration over the other based on the deceased's alleged deaf and dumb status was justified.The Court held that the High Court erred in appreciating evidence at the stage of framing charges, as the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge under Section 227 is limited, and charges can be framed based on strong suspicion without delving into the evidence. The Court cited the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi to support this principle.Regarding the preference of one dying declaration over the other, the Court found that the High Court's observation that the deceased was both deaf and dumb lacked factual basis. The respondents had described the deceased as dumb and paralytic, not deaf. The Court emphasized that at the stage of deciding which dying declaration to rely on, the High Court should not have made a preference as both declarations were relevant and identified the respondents as the perpetrators.In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the appeals and directing the trial judge to expedite the disposal of the Sessions Case. The Court emphasized that all contentions of the parties would remain open for further consideration during the trial proceedings.