LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus PRIYA SHARAN MAHARAJ AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA A v. PRTYA SHARAN MAHARAJ AND ORS. MARCH 11, 1997 (G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] B Criminal Law : Criminal Procedu~i Code, 1973 : Sections 227, 228 and 219. Accused-Discharge of or framing of charges against-Tests to deter- c mine-Held: Court had to sift evidence on record only for the limited purpose ~ of finding out whether a prim a f acie case was made out against the ac- cused-At that stage Court was not required to sift the evidence.for arriving at the conclusion that it would not lead to conviction-In the circumstances of the case, the High Court erred in seeking independent co"oboration to the D version of the complainants in discharging the accused-Case remitted to trial court to proceed further in accordance with law-Trial Court was further directed to consider afresh whether the charge was required to be altered or amended so as to make it consistent with S. 219. Penal Code, 1860 : Section 376. E Accused-Complaint against-For committing rape on 3 girls at dif- f erent times-High Court discharged accused on grounds that he was a saintly old n_ian who had thousands/millions of disciples all over India and that there was delay on the part of the rape victims in disclosing those illegal acts to F their parents and polic~eld : High Court e"ed in discharging the accused merely on such grounds-Rape victims, while making co,mplaint to the police, were not required to give detailed explanations. :, Section 37fr-Extema/ injwies-Absence of-4.Jn the person of the prosecutrix-Held: Version of the prosecutrix could not be described as false G on such a ground. The ·accused, a spiritual teacher, was charged under Section 376. of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for committing rape on 3 girls at different times. The application for discharge of the accused was dismissed. ·But the High Court .discharged the accused on the grounds that the accused was H 933 / ~ 934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I (1997) 2 S.C.R. A a saintly old man, who had renounced the world, who was engrossed in· spiritual activities and ·who had thousands millions or disciples all over India and, therefore, was not likely to indulge in the illegal acts alleged against him. The High Court- further held that a saintly old man would not commit sexual intercourse with the pracharak of his cult in the presence B or his disciples; that the conduct or the victims and the delay in disclosing the illegal acts to their parents and the police showed that the girls had leveled raise alle~ations against the accused; that there was no independent corroboration or the story or the victims and that the absence or external injuries on the person of the prosecutrix showed that her version was false. Hence this appeal. c On behalf or the appellant-State it was contended that the High Court far exceeded the limits or consideration at the stage or Section 227 or the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; and that the High Court committed error in sirting and weighing the material placed before the Court by · applying the standard or test and proof which was to be applied finally for D deciding'whether the accused was guilty or not. . Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: l.1. At the stag~ of Sections 227 and 228 or the Criminal E Procedure Code, 1973 the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out ir the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the in• gredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence, as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even ifit is opposed F to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage or framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it G is not likely to lead to a com:iction. (939-D-G] 1.2. What the Court has to consider at the stage of framing of the charge is whether the version of the person complaining together with his/her explanation is prim a f acie believable or not. It was, therefore, not proper for the High Court to seek independent corroboration at that stage H and to 9uash the cha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.