STATE OF BIHAR versus RAMESH SINGH

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 02-08-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
257 
STATE OF BIHAR 
----·---~-· 
v. 
RAMESH SINGH . 
August 2; 1977 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. N. SIDNGHAL, JJ.] 
.: CirinJi11al Procedure Code 1973-Sections 226, 227 and 228. 
Te~tr for discharging an accused-Presumption of innocence-Difference 
betwetn cake for conviction or case for proceeding further • 
At J.00 A . .M. on the 26th of November 1973 SmL Tara Devi, wife of res-
pondent. a professor of Economics, in Munshi Singh College, .l\fotihari 
in 
State cf Bihar, was found burning in the Kitchen of their house. She died as 
a result ·of excessive bum injuries on her person. The brother of Tara. Devi · 
rushed to the spot and found that respondent and his brother were standing 
near tte burning body of Tara Devi but were not taking any steps to extinguish 
tho f.re. 
He lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station charging the respondent for 
having conimitted the offences under s. 302 and 201 of Penal COO.e. 
Charge 
sheet l',as submitted against him by the police and the case was committed to 
Sessicns Court for trial of the respondent u/s. 209- of Cr.- P.C.- 1973. _ 
The Sessions Judge discharged the accused under s. 227 of Cr. P. Code· 1973 
on the r:round that there was not sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial 
agaill!t respondent and he was discharged in accordance with section 227. 
The State of Bihar \vent in revision before ·Patna High Court, which wa<s 
dismi!o;ed by the High Court. 
AUc,,·ing the appeal by special leave 7 
HEID : ( 1) Under s. 226 of the Code the prosecutor white opening the 
case t.as got to describe the charge against the accused and State 
by what 
evidence he proposes to prove the gujlt of the accused. Thereafter. comes at 
the. initial stage, the dtJty of the Court to consider tho record of the case and 
the documents submitted therewith. The Judge has then to pass an order either 
u/s. 227 or u/s. 228 ·of Code. · [259C, DJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
. li the _Judge 
considers that there is not sufficient ground 
for proceeding 
agai~1 the accused7 he shall discharge the accused and record hi'i reasoll9 for 
so doing as enjoined bys. 227. If on the other hand. the Judge is of opinion 
that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence 
d~: 
F 
(a) .•...........••••• 
(b) is exclusively triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a char£e 
agaimt the accused as provided in s. 228. 
Reading the two provisions together in juxta a position at the initial stage 
of lbe trial; the truth, veracity and effect of the eviednce which the prosecutor 
proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to 
be. attached to the probable defence of the accused. [259E-F] 
. l'be standard of test and judgment v.·hich is to be fi~ally · applied before 
recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of accused. 
is 
not 
ex~y to be applied at the stage of deciding ,the matteIT under s. 227 and 228 
of the Code. [259G] 
G 
Streng suspicion against the accused, if it remains in the re~ion of suspicion. 
cannot tate the place of proof of bis guilt at the conclusion of trial. But at . 
the· initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court_ to think 
H 
that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence 
then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for 
·proceeding against the accused. 
It is only ·for 
the 
purpose, of deciding 
A. 
B 
c 
'D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
·~ 
258 .' 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978) l S.C.R. 
prbna facie "'·hether the court should_ proceed with · the - trial - or not. The 
evidence \\·hich the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the 
accused even if fully accepte.d before .it is challenged in cross..examinatiM or 
rebutted by the defence evidence, if any,. cannot show that the accused comm:tted 
the offence. then there \\·ill be no sufficient ground for proceeding '\Vith 
the 
trial. l259H, 260A·Bl 
- • • -
- • 
If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are scme-
thing like even, at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit 
of doubt the· case is .to end in his acquittal. 
But if on th~ other hand, if U So 
at the initial stage of making an order under s. 227 or s. 228 then in si.;b a 
situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made. \\"j:i be 
one under s. 228 and not under s. 227. 
[260C-DJ-_- __ . 
·· • 
Ninnal Jeet Singh Hoon v. State of JVest Bengal-(1913) 2- SCR 66 has 
follo'\\

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