SC Sets Aside HC Order Discharging Accused For Murder

The Supreme Court, on July 26, held that a trial court at the stage of framing of charge and discharge of an accused person could not hold a mini trial.

Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Ahay S Oka and JB Pardiwala, observed that, “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 Court heard a Special Leave Petition filed by the original complainant in the case against an order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. The petitioner’s wife had been allegedly murdered by the accused persons.

Facts

An FIR came to be registered against the accused persons initially under Sections 147, 354, 323 and 451 of the IPC. When the wife of the petitioner succumbed to her injuries, Section 302 (Murder) was added to the FIR.

The accused persons attacked the petitioner and in order to save him, his wife and daughter-in-law were also beaten up by the accused persons. They were dragged due to which their clothes tore off leading to outraging their modesty.

The wife of the petitioner could not survive and Section 302 was added. Witnesses were examined and panchnamas were drawn. The police filed chargesheet against the accused for the offence of murder and other offences. The cause of death of the deceased as assigned in the post mortem was “cardio respiratory failure”

At the stage of framing of charge, the Additional Sessions Judge discharged the accused persons of the offence of murder under Section 302 and instead framed charge under Section 304 (Culpable Homicide). The trial court observed thus, “Medical opinion on file reflect that ther was no injury on any other part of the body of the deceased except over upper  and lower lips with abrasions on face. Wheter such act has caused the death of the deceased has not been mentioned anywhere in the record. Injury as reflected in the injury memo also does not reflect any such consequence which could lead   to   the   death   of   the deceased.”

The petitioner approached the J & K High Court with a revision application, which was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order of the trial court and observed thus, “The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that no offence under section 302 IPC is made out against the respondent Nos. 1 to 7.”

Hence, the petitioner preferred the instant SLP.

Decision

The Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court and 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 Court cited its judgment in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4, wherein the scope of enquiry a judge is required to make while considering the question of framing of charges was discussed.

“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,” the Court observed.

The Court further observed that, “The sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice.”

The Court overturned the order of the High Court and stated that, “The post mortem report, by itself, does not constitute substantive evidence. Whether the “cardio respiratory failure” had any nexus with the incident in question would have to be determined on the basis of the oral evidence of the eye witnesses as well as the medical officer concerned i.e. the expert witness who may be examined by the Prosecution as one of its witnesses.”

The Court further, rejected the reasoning of the High Court and the trial court and observed that, “The post mortem repot of the doctor is his previous statement based on his examination of the dead body. It is not substantive evidence.”

The SLP was allowed and High Court order was set aside.