Supreme Court Orders Framing of Attempt to Murder Charge: Bihari Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2019)

Date of the Judgment: April 15, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 355

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a court dismiss a charge of attempt to murder (Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) merely by evaluating medical reports before the actual trial begins? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, clarifying the role of medical evidence at the stage of framing charges. The court held that the lower courts erred in discharging the accused based on their own assessment of medical reports, emphasizing that such evaluation should occur during the trial after evidence is presented. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, with Justice Sapre authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal against a decision by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, which upheld a lower court’s order. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, had initially discharged the accused (Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4) from charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The accused were facing prosecution for offences under Sections 307, 323, 325, 336, and 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, based on medical reports submitted by the prosecution, concluded that no prima facie case was made out under Section 307 IPC.

The complainant (Appellant) challenged this decision in the High Court, which dismissed the revision petition, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, discharged the accused from the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the medical reports submitted by the prosecution. The judge concluded that the medical reports did not support a prima facie case for attempt to murder. The complainant then filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, challenging the Additional Sessions Judge’s order. The High Court dismissed the criminal revision, affirming the lower court’s decision. This led the complainant to file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with attempt to murder. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”

The court also considered the general principles related to framing of charges in criminal cases, emphasizing that at this stage, the court should only determine if a prima facie case is made out, and not conduct a detailed analysis of evidence.

Arguments

Arguments by the Accused (Respondent Nos. 2-4):

• The accused argued that the medical reports submitted by the prosecution did not support the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• They contended that based on the medical evidence, no attempt to murder was made out, and therefore, they should be discharged from this charge.

Arguments by the Complainant (Appellant):

• The complainant argued that the lower courts erred in evaluating the medical reports at the stage of framing charges.
• The complainant asserted that a prima facie case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was indeed made out, and the accused should be charged accordingly.

Arguments by the State (Respondent No. 1):

• The State supported the complainant’s argument that a prima facie case existed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The accused’s argument was innovative in the sense that they sought to use the medical reports, which are typically considered evidence during the trial, to get discharged at the stage of framing charges itself. This was a departure from the conventional understanding of the process.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the lower courts were justified in discharging the accused from the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on their assessment of the medical reports at the stage of framing charges.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The primary focus was on the interpretation of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the procedural aspects of framing charges.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was used by the court to determine that a prima facie case for attempt to murder existed based on the medical reports. The court emphasized that the detailed analysis of the medical reports should occur during the trial, not at the stage of framing charges.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural aspect of framing charges in criminal cases. The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court’s role is to determine if a prima facie case exists, and not to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence. The court found that the lower courts had overstepped their bounds by evaluating the medical evidence in detail and finding fault with it at the stage of framing charges.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the lower courts’ approach of analyzing the medical reports at the stage of framing charges. The Court emphasized that the detailed evaluation of evidence, including medical reports, should occur during the trial. The Court stated that the lower courts should have only determined if a prima facie case was made out, and not conducted a detailed analysis of the medical evidence.

The Supreme Court observed:

“In our view, both the Courts below wrongly went on to appreciate the two medical reports, found fault and inconsistencies therein and then came to a conclusion that no prima facie case is made out against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 insofar as the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned.”

The Court further noted:

“The stage to appreciate the evidence with a view to find fault or/and inconsistencies in the two medical reports would arise only when the prosecution leads evidence by examining the doctors in support of the medical reports. That stage is yet to come in this case.”

The Court concluded:

“Mere perusal of the medical reports filed by the prosecution would prima facie show that a case under Section 307 IPC is made out against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and, therefore, the charge under Section 307 IPC should have been framed against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 along with the other charges.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

The implications of this judgment are that lower courts are not to conduct a detailed analysis of evidence at the stage of framing charges, and that a prima facie case is sufficient to frame a charge. This decision reinforces the principle that the trial is the appropriate stage for detailed evaluation of evidence.

Key Takeaways

• Lower courts should not conduct a detailed analysis of evidence, such as medical reports, at the stage of framing charges.
• A prima facie case is sufficient to frame a charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The detailed evaluation of evidence should occur during the trial, after the prosecution has presented its case.
• This judgment clarifies the procedural aspects of framing charges in criminal cases, ensuring that the trial process is not preempted by premature evaluation of evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Additional Sessions Judge, who was seized of the trial, to frame the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the accused (Respondent Nos. 2 to 4). The Court also clarified that the accused would be entitled to argue after the evidence is adduced that no case is made out against them under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that at the stage of framing charges, the court should only determine if a prima facie case exists and should not conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence, including medical reports. This judgment reinforces the established legal principle that the trial stage is the appropriate time for a detailed evaluation of evidence. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but this judgment clarifies and reinforces the existing principle.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bihari Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. clarifies the process of framing charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that lower courts erred in discharging the accused based on their own assessment of medical reports at the stage of framing charges. The Court emphasized that the detailed evaluation of evidence, including medical reports, should occur during the trial. This judgment ensures that the accused are properly charged and that the trial process is followed correctly.