High Court

Legal Reasoning

{1} REVN 68 OF 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 68 OF 2024Ganesh Sahebrao VikheAge: 32 years, Occu.: Service,R/o. Vaijapur, Tal.Vaijapur,Dist.Aurangabad.….Applicant (Orig. Accused)VersusThe State of MaharashtraThrough Investigating Officer,Gangapur Police Station,Tal.Gangapur, Dist.Aurangabad.…..Respondent …..Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Vishweshwar Haribhau PathadeAPP for Respondent : Ms.Vaishali S.Chaudhari…… CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 12 MARCH, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 17 MARCH, 2025 ORDER :1.Vide present revision application, applicant / original accusedis questioning the order dated 08-12-2023 passed by the learnedAssistant Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, Dist.Aurangabad on applicationbelow exh.28 seeking discharge by invoking Section 227 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). {2} REVN 68 OF 20242.It is submitted that applicant was chargesheeted forcommission of offence under Sections 306, 498-A read with 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code (IPC) in consequence to crime bearingno.3058 of 2015. That, apparently there was false implication onallegations of harassment and demand. That, merely because deadbody was found in the well, said occurrence is reported and crime isregistered alleging cruelty and abetment to commit suicide. Learnedcounsel submitted that now entire investigation is over. That,required ingredients for attracting neither Section 498-A nor Section306 of IPC are available in the chargesheet. That, there weregeneral and vague allegations. That, it was not proved whetherdeceased accidentally fell or drowned or whether she committedsuicide and therefore, applicant had filed discharge applicationexh.28 by invoking Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.. That, learned trialCourt failed to consider and appreciate settled legal provisions whilegranting or rejecting discharge application. That, moreover,applicant was not residing with deceased at the time of incident.However, alongwith other family members, he is also implicated.That, he has recently joined services as Gramsevak, but because ofimplication, his service career is in jeopardy. On the above grounds,learned counsel questions the legality and sustainability of the {3} REVN 68 OF 2024impugned order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,Vaijapur.3.Learned APP pointed out that after marriage, deceased wassubjected to cruelty in the backdrop of demand of Rs.50,000/- forconstruction of house apart from setting up demand of ornaments.That, due to harassment on account of non-fulfillment of demand,deceased committed suicide. That, on lodgment of report,investigation was carried out which revealed complicity of accusedand therefore, he and others were chargesheeted. That, all requiredingredients for attracting charge of both Sections 498-A and 306 ofthe IPC are available. That, Section 34 has been invoked as familymembers were also involved. Thus, according to learned APP nofault can be found in the impugned order of rejection of discharge.4.Heard. Present application is apparently preferred invokingprovisions under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Before analyzing abovematerial, it would be fruitful to give a brief account of the settledlegal position and land mark judgments in which, guidelines andprinciples are enunciated regarding objects and scope of Section 227of the Cr.P.C. {4} REVN 68 OF 2024In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI MANU/SC/0741/2010 :(2010) 9 SCC 368, on the scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the Hon’bleApex Court observed in para 21 as under :"21. On consideration of the authorities about scope ofSections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principlesemerge:(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing thecharges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubtedpower to sift and weigh the evidence for the limitedpurpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie caseagainst the accused has been made out. The test todetermine prima facie case would depend upon the facts ofeach case.(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclosegrave suspicion against the accused which has not beenproperly explained, the Court will be fully justified inframing a charge and proceeding with the trial.(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or amouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider thebroad probabilities of the case, the total effect of theevidence and the documents produced before the Court,any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, therecannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of thematter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting atrial.(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Courtcould form an opinion that the accused might havecommitted offence, it can frame the charge, though forconviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond {5} REVN 68 OF 2024reasonable doubt that the accused has committed theoffence.(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probativevalue of the material on record cannot be gone into butbefore framing a charge the Court must apply its judicialmind on the material placed on record and must besatisfied that the commission of offence by the accused waspossible.(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court isrequired to evaluate the material and documents on recordwith a view to find out if the facts emerging therefromtaken at their face value discloses the existence of all theingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limitedpurpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even atthat initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states asgospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or thebroad probabilities of the case.(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise tosuspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, thetrial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused andat this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end inconviction or acquittal."The Hon'ble Apex Court, on the limited power of sifting thematerial on record at the stage of charge, in case of DipakbhaiJagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0595/2019 :(2019) 16 SCC 547, observed as under :"23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance withthe principles which have been laid down by this Court, {6} REVN 68 OF 2024what the Court is expected to do is, it does not act as amere post office. The Court must indeed sift the materialbefore it. The material to be sifted would be the materialwhich is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. Thesifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the Courtdons the mantle of the Trial Judge hearing arguments afterthe entire evidence has been adduced after a full-fledgedtrial and the question is not whether the prosecution hasmade out the case for the conviction of the accused. Allthat is required is, the Court must be satisfied that withthe materials available, a case is made out for the accusedto stand trial..."In Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency MANU/SC/0863/2019 : (2019) 7 SCC 148 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observedthat at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not expectedor supposed to hold a mini trial for the purpose of marshalling theevidence on record. The relevant observations in this regard read asunder:"18. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject laiddown by this Court, it is settled that the Judge whileconsidering the question of framing charge under Section227 CrPC in sessions cases(which is akin to Section 239CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubtedpower to sift and weigh the evidence for the limitedpurpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie caseagainst the accused has been made out; where the materialplaced before the Court discloses grave suspicion againstthe accused which has not been properly explained, theCourt will be fully justified in framing the charge; by andlarge if two views are possible and one of them giving riseto suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion {7} REVN 68 OF 2024against the accused, the trial Judge will be justified indischarging him. It is thus clear that while examining thedischarge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it isexpected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mindto determine as to whether a case for trial has been madeout or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the Court isnot supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling theevidence on record."Some other rulings on this aspect can be named as State ofMaharashtra and others v. Som Nath Thapa and others (1996) 4 SCC659; State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338; Amit Kapoorv. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9 SCC 460; Asim Shariff v.National Investigation Agency (2019) 7 SCC 148.5.Bearing above legal requirements in mind, perused the papersand impugned order. After considering above submissions and ongoing through the papers, it seems that applicant was convicted forcommission of offence under Sections 306, 498-A read with 34 of theIPC by Gangapur Police on receipt of report from Devidas resultinginto registration of crime no.3058 of 2015. Perused the FIR and alsostatements of witnesses, who are said to be near and dear ones ofdeceased. Documents show that deceased was found dead in a well.Therefore, though question was raised as to whether it wasaccidental fall or whether it was suicide, trial otherwise also becomes {8} REVN 68 OF 2024imperative. On going through the papers placed on record, primafacie it cannot be said that essential ingredients for attracting thecharges are not available. Therefore, this Court does not find anyreason to record opinion at this stage that there is no material forapplicant to face charge. Merely because he is in Government service,is no good ground to grant discharge. 6.Perused the impugned order. Learned trial Court hasappreciated arguments advanced before it, and after perusing thepapers and material gathered during investigation, after discussinglegal precedents, application exh.28 has been rejected. Consideringthe material available on record, this Court is of the view that there issufficient material for undertaking trial. Resultantly, no fault can befound in the impugned order. Hence, following order is passed : ORDERCriminal Revision Application No.68 of 2024 is rejected. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT