SMT. OM WAT! AND ANR. versus STATE. THROUGH DELHI ADMN. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 482 · Decided: 19-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. OM WAT! AND ANR. 
-
v. 
t 
STATE. THROUGH DELHI ADMN. AND ORS. 
MARCH 19, 2001 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Code o.f Criminal Pmcedure, 1973 : Sections 227 and 228. 
Framing of charge-Reasons for-Requirement of-Trial court framed 
c 
charges against the accused-But High Court quashed the charges and directed 
trial coutt to give reasons-Correctness o,f-Held: Reasons are required to be 
recoded only lvhen the accused is discharged-No reasons are required lvhen 
charges arefra1ned against the accused-The trial cou1r& not required to rne-
ticulously consider the evidence at the time offraming~f charges-Hence, High 
Coun erred in directing tlze trial cou11 to give reasons.forfra1ning of charges. 
D 
The appellant's son was heaten to death hy the accused-respondents. 
The trial court framed charges against the accused persons. The High 
Court quashed the charge and directed the trial court to give reasons for 
framing of the charges. Thereafter, the trial court as per a detailed order 
E 
framed charges against the respondents under Sections 302, 147 and 148 
read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860. The High Court disposed of 
the respondents' Criminal Revision Petition with the observation that no 
charge under Section 302 IPC was made out. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : 1. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
provides that if upon consideration of the recorc) of the case and the 
documents submitted therewith, the Judge considers that there is no sufli-
cient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the 
accused for which he is required to record his reasons for so doing. No 
G 
reasons are required to be recorded when the charges are framed against 
the accused persons. [486-C-D] 
Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Benga4 [2000] 1SCC722, referred 
to. 
,. 
.H 
2. At the stage of passing the order in terms of Section 227 of the 
482 
OM WAT! v. STATE THROUGH DELHI ADMN. 
483 
Code, the Court has merely to peruse the evidence in order to find out 
A 
t 
whether or not there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the 
accused. H upon consideration, the court is satisfied that a prima facie case 
is made out against the accused, the Judge must proceed to frame charge 
in terms of Sction 228 ofthe Code. Only in a case where it is shown that the 
evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the 
B 
accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination 
or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed 
the crime, then and then alone the court can discharge the accused. The 
court is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of evidence 
and material placed before it at this stage. [487-D-F] 
c 
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nethuma Chordia, [1989] 1 
SCC 716; State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR (1977) SC 2018; SupdJ. & 
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, AIR 
(1980) SC 52 and Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, [1996] 9 SCC 766, 
referred to. 
D 
3. The trial court, in the instant case, rightly held that merely on 
account of the observations and the opinion incorporated in the post-
mortem report, the prosecution could not be deprived of its right to prove 
that the accused were guilty of the offence for which the final report had 
-~ 
been filed against them. It is not safe, at this stage, to deprive the prosecu-
E 
lion in proving its case on the basis of the direct evidence, the statement of 
the deceased claimed to be admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence 
Act, 1872 and the other documents including the inquest report allegedly 
• 
disclosing the infliction of injuries on the person of the deceased which 
resulted in his death. [490-B-D) 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 304 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.8.2000 of the Delhi High Court 
in Crl. R. No. 87 of 1998. 
G 
R. K. Handoo, P. Ojha, K. V Mohan and R.P. Ranjan for the Appellants. 
Ranjit Kr. and Ms. Binu Tamta for the Respcndent Nos. 2-5. 
B.A. Mohanti, A. Mariarputham, Arona Mathur and D.S. Mabra for the 
Respondent No. I. 
H 
• 
484 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SEIBI, J. Leave granted. 
The present case reflects and demonstrates the abuse of the process of 
the court by the accused persons who have. succeeded in protractin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.