LexRAM PRAKASH CHADHA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1155 : 2024 INSC 522 Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 2395 of 2023) 15 July 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar* and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.] Issue for Consideration In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34, IPC. An application for discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC was rejected by the Trial Court. Whether the findings of the trial Court on the ground to proceed against the appellant is based on suppositions and suspicions, having no foundational support from the materials produced by the prosecution. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Discharge – In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34, IPC – Appellant sought discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC – The said application for discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC, was rejected by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI) – The appellant filed an application u/s.482 of Cr.PC before the High Court, however, same was dismissed by the High Court – Propriety: Held: In the final report filed in FIR No.371 of 1993 viz., in the custodial death case, the record revealed that the essence of the accusation is commission of custodial death owing to the torture to which victim-deceased was subjected to, from 17.07.1993 to 23.07.1993 – A scanning of the charge as also the other materials including the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s. 161, Cr.PC, would reveal that there is absolute absence of any accusation or even an insinuation that the appellant had played any role in torturing victim – The implication of the appellant in the crime is with the aid of s.120B and s.34, IPC – An agreement referred to in Section 120A, IPC may be expressed or implied or * Author 1156 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports in part express and in part implied – However, no record of the case or documents submitted therewith carry such an allegation/ accusation against the appellant – The findings of the Trial Court on the ground to proceed against the appellant is based on suppositions and suspicions, having no foundational support from the materials produced by the prosecution – It is to be noted that it is nobody’s case that the appellant was in the Police Station or informed of the sufferance from chest pain of accused – In another case, Crime No.351/1993 u/s. 392, IPC the deceased was only a witness and that the amount in cash and the draft involved was that of the appellant – It is also the case of the prosecution that the said case was registered, at the instance of the appellant against unknown persons – Hence, when the appellant who lost the money went to Police Station along with the witness thereof, how can it be presumed by the Court as a strong case for suspicion for commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy – When there is no case for the prosecution that the appellant pointed the fingers at deceased how the lodging of the complaint, apprehending custodial death of deceased who was appellant’s clerk for about 13 years, which caused the registration of custodial death case under FIR No.371/1993 can be taken as a ground for framing charge against the appellant for the offences punishable u/s. 302, IPC, 120-B with the aid of s.34, IPC – These aspects were not considered by the High Court – Consequently, the order and judgment dated 21.04.2023 passed by the High Court in an application filed u/s. 482, Cr.PC, and the order dated 19.04.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI) are set aside.[Paras 23, 24, 28, 30, 35] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Jurisdiction of the Court: Held: It will be within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused concerned has been made out – This Court is of the considered view that a caution has to be sounded for the reason that the chances of going beyond the permissible jurisdiction u/s. 227, Cr.PC, and entering into the scope of power u/s. 232, Cr.PC, cannot be ruled out as such instances are aplenty. [Para 19] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Framing of charge – Duty and obligation of the Court: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1157 Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Held: The question of framing the charge would arise only in a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.