CAPTAIN MANJIT SINGH VIRDI (RETD.) versus HUSSAIN MOHAMMED SHATTAF & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 6 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 18-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
CAPTAIN MANJIT SINGH VIRDI (RETD.)
v.
HUSSAIN MOHAMMED SHATTAF & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2023)
MAY 18, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Application for
discharge – Victim’s body was found in a pool of blood in his bedroom
– After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against respondent
nos.1 & 2 – Trial Court had not yet framed charges – Immediately
after filing of charge-sheet, application for discharge was filed –
The same was dismissed by the Trial Court – However, the High
Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and discharged
respondent nos. 1 & 2 – On appeal, held: The settled proposition of
law is that at the stage of hearing on charges entire evidence
produced by the prosecution is to be believed – In case no case is
made out, then only an accused can be discharged – At the stage of
charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out
against the accused persons – In the instant case, the High Court
had not referred to the evidence collected by the investigating agency
produced along with charge-sheet in its entirety – Rather there is
selective reference to the statements of some of the persons recorded
during investigation – There was no reference to the psychological
evaluation including psychological profiling, polygraph testing and
brain electrical oscillations signature profiling (BEOS) tests of the
accused and the other aides of respondent no.1 – Respondent nos.
1 & 2 were discharged without application of mind – High Court
had exercised the jurisdiction in a manner which is not vested in it
to scuttle the trial of a heinous crime.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The law on issue as to what is to be considered
at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case
in which the Trial Court had not yet framed the charges.
Immediately after filing of chargesheet, application for discharge
was filed. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of
hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 469
469
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out
then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency
and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at
the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy
that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons.
Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is
strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed,
the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court. [Para
11][473-D-F]
2. The High Court vide impugned order had summed up
the entire evidence in two paras without even referring to the
Psychological Evaluation including Psychological Profiling,
Polygraph Testing and Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature
Profiling (BEOS) tests of the accused and the other aides of
respondent no.1 and ordered discharge of Respondent Nos.1 and
2. [Para 18][477-G-H; 478-A]
3. Though Psychological Evaluation test report only may
not be sufficient to convict an accused but certainly a material
piece of evidence. Despite this material on record, the High Court
could not have opined that the case was not made out even for
framing of charge, for which only prima facie case is to be seen.
[Para 19][478-B]
4. If the facts of the case are examined in the light of law
laid down by this Court on the subject, it is evident that the High
Court has not even referred to the evidence collected by
Investigating Agency produced alongwith chargesheet in its
entirety. Rather there is selective reference to the statements of
some of the persons recorded during investigation. It shows that
there was total non-application of mind. The High Court had
exercised the jurisdiction in a manner which is not vested in it to
scuttle the trial of a heinous crime. [Para 20][478-B-D]
State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021) 11
SCC 191 – relied on.
State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Dr. Maroti
S/o. Kashinath Pimpalkar (2023) 4 SCC 298 – referred
to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
Case Law Reference
(2023) 4 SCC 298
referred to
Para 4
(2021) 11 SCC 191
relied on
Para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1399 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in CRLRA No. 135 of 2012.
Kunal Cheema, Shivam Dube, Raghav Deshpande, Advs. for

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.