GHULAM HASSAN BEIGH versus MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL MAGREY & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 26-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
GHULAM HASSAN BEIGH
v.
MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL MAGREY & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1041 of 2022)
JULY 26, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA AND
J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 226, 227 and 228 – Penal
Code, 1860: 147, 302, 323, 354 & 451 – Accused persons formed
an unlawful assembly and laid an assault on the appellant and his
family members and during the assault wife of the appellant
succumbed to the injuries inflicted on her by the accused persons –
Cause of death of the deceased in the post mortem report was “cardio
respiratory failure” – Charge sheet against the accused persons
for the offence of murder along with other offences – Trial court
discharged the accused persons of the offence of murder and
proceeded to frame charge for the offence of culpable homicide
punishable u/s.304 of the IPC – High Court affirmed the order of
trial court discharging the accused persons of the offence of murder
– On appeal, held: 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 material which is required to be evaluated by the
Court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is
produced and relied upon by the prosecution – 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 – Whether the case falls under ss.302 or
304 Part II,  IPC could be decided only after the evaluation of the
entire oral evidence that may  be  led  by  the  prosecution  as well as
by the defence, if any, comes on record – 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.
Evidence Act, 1872: Evidentiary Value of Post Mortem Report
– The post mortem report, by itself, does not constitute substantive
evidence – The post mortem report of the doctor is his previous
statement based on his examination of the dead body – The doctor’s
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 34
34
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
35
statement in court is alone the substantive evidence – The post
mortem report can be used only to corroborate his statement under
s.157, or to refresh his memory under s.159, or to contradict his
statement in the witness box under s.145 of the  Evidence Act, 1872.
Evidence Act, 1872: s. 45 – Expert Opinion – The expert
witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of
the data which induced him to come to a conclusion and enlighten
the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the
terms of science so that the Court although, not an expert may form
its  own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the
expert’s opinion because once the expert’s opinion is accepted, it is
not the opinion of the medical officer but of the Court.
Allowing the appeal, Court
HELD: 1. 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.
However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the
Court at the time of framing charge should be the material which
is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. 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. Undoubtedly, apart from
the material that is placed before  the Court by the prosecution in
the shape of final report in terms of Section 173 of CrPC, the
Court may also rely upon any other evidence or material which is
of sterling quality and has direct bearing on the charge laid before
it by the prosecution. [Para 27][52-F-H; 53-A]
2. The case on hand, the trial court could be said to have
conducted a mini trial while marshalling the evidence on record.
The trial court thought fit to discharge the accused persons from
the offence of murder and proceeded to frame charge for the
GHULAM HASSAN BEIGH v. MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL
M

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