Supreme Court overturns Bombay High Court order in murder case: Captain Manjit Singh Virdi vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 18, 2023

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2023

Judges: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal. The judgment was authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

On May 14, 2006, Manmohan Singh Sukhdev Singh Virdi was found murdered in his bungalow in Lonawala. Following this, an FIR No. 46 of 2006 was registered at Lonawala City Police Station. The police investigation culminated in a chargesheet against Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (Respondent No. 1), his wife Waheeda Hussain Shattaf (Respondent No. 2), and Zaanish Khan. The prosecution alleged that Respondent No. 1, upon discovering his wife’s affair with the deceased, conspired with her and Zaanish Khan to have the deceased killed by unknown assailants.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Pune, by the Magistrate since it was triable by the Sessions Court. Following the filing of the chargesheet, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a discharge application, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on February 21, 2012. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, however, overturned this decision on July 17, 2013, discharging Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This order was then challenged before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily discusses the principles governing the discharge of an accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), specifically concerning Sections 161, 164, 227 and 239 of the CrPC.

• Section 161, CrPC: This section deals with the examination of witnesses by the police during the investigation.
• Section 164, CrPC: This section pertains to the recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate.
• Section 227, CrPC: This section outlines the procedure for discharge of the accused when there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the trial. The Court has to determine if there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.
• Section 239, CrPC: This section deals with the discharge of the accused in sessions cases. It states that the court shall discharge the accused if, upon considering the police report and documents, there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.

The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court must only determine if a prima facie case exists, without conducting a mini-trial or evaluating the truthfulness of the evidence.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Captain Manjit Singh Virdi):

• The High Court conducted a mini-trial by referring to statements in the chargesheet, which is beyond its jurisdiction at the discharge stage.
• The High Court failed to consider the Psychological Evaluation, Polygraph Testing, and Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature Profiling (BEOS) conducted on Respondent Nos. 1 and their aides, which indicated their involvement in the crime.
• The appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Dr. Maroti S/o.Kashinath Pimpalkar, arguing that the High Court overstepped its boundaries.

Respondent’s Arguments (Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors.):

• The murder was a blind case with no eyewitnesses.
• There was no enmity between the respondents and the deceased.
• The prosecution built a false story without any supporting material.
• The Trial Court failed to exercise its power to discharge the respondents, leading to an abuse of process.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the High Court’s order cannot be sustained as it appreciated the evidence, which is only possible after evidence is recorded during trial.
• At the stage of framing charges, only a prima facie case is to be seen.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in emphasizing the importance of the psychological evaluation reports, which are not typically given much weight at the stage of framing charges.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was justified in setting aside the Trial Court’s order and discharging Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Dr. Maroti S/o.Kashinath Pimpalkar (2023) 4 SCC 298 – This case was cited by the appellant to support the argument that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial.
• State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021) 11 SCC 191 – This case was used to summarize the law on what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused.
• P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2010) 2 SCC 398 – This case was cited to explain that at the stage of Section 227 of CrPC, the judge has to sift the evidence to find out if there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.
• State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515 – This case was used to reiterate that the court must proceed on the assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate it to determine if the facts disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence.
• State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan (2014) 11 SCC 709 – This case was cited to explain that the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction at the stage of framing charges.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Regarding the examination of witnesses by police.
• Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Regarding the recording of confessions and statements.
• Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Regarding discharge of the accused.
• Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Regarding discharge of the accused in session cases.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court used State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Dr. Maroti S/o.Kashinath Pimpalkar [ (2023) 4 SCC 298]* to highlight that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial.
• The Supreme Court relied on State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap [(2021) 11 SCC 191]* to reiterate the settled law on the considerations for discharge of an accused.
• The Supreme Court cited P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala [(2010) 2 SCC 398]*, State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath [(2019) 7 SCC 515]*, and State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [(2014) 11 SCC 709]* to emphasize that at the stage of framing charges, the court should not conduct a mini-trial and should only determine if a prima facie case exists.
• The Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, specifically Sections 161, 164, 227, and 239, to determine the correct procedure for discharge.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The High Court’s overreach in conducting a mini-trial and appreciating evidence at the stage of discharge.
• The importance of considering the psychological evaluations and other material collected by the Investigating Agency.
• The principle that a prima facie case is sufficient for framing charges.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and the correct interpretation of procedural law, as reflected in the higher percentage of “Law” in the ratio table.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by engaging in a detailed analysis of the evidence, which is not permissible at the stage of framing charges. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have only considered whether a prima facie case existed, and not the truthfulness or sufficiency of the evidence. The Court also noted that the High Court failed to consider the psychological evaluations, which were a material piece of evidence.

The Supreme Court stated, “The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged.”

The Court also observed, “At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court.”

Further, the Court noted, “Though Psychological Evaluation test report only may not be sufficient to convict an accused but certainly a material piece of evidence.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or appreciate evidence at the stage of discharge.
• Psychological evaluations are a material piece of evidence that should be considered.
• A prima facie case is sufficient for framing charges, and the truthfulness of the evidence is to be determined during the trial.
• This judgment reinforces the principle that the court’s role at the charge framing stage is limited to determining if there is sufficient ground to proceed, rather than evaluating the merits of the case.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that at the stage of framing charges, the court should only determine if a prima facie case exists based on the material produced by the prosecution, without conducting a mini-trial or evaluating the truthfulness of the evidence. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce a new principle of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order discharging the accused. The Court emphasized that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial and not considering all the material evidence. The case was sent back to the Trial Court to proceed with the trial.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Murder
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: What is a prima facie case in criminal law?

A: A prima facie case means that there is enough evidence to suggest that a crime might have been committed. It is a basic level of evidence required to proceed with a trial, but it does not mean the accused is guilty.

Q: What is the role of a court at the stage of framing charges?

A: At the stage of framing charges, the court needs to determine if there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial. The court does not conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence or decide the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Q: What is a mini-trial and why is it not allowed at the stage of framing charges?

A: A mini-trial refers to a detailed evaluation of evidence, which is not allowed at the stage of framing charges. The court’s role at this stage is limited to seeing if there is enough material to proceed, and the detailed evaluation of evidence is done during the trial.

Q: What is the significance of psychological evaluation reports in a criminal case?

A: Psychological evaluation reports, while not sufficient for conviction on their own, are considered material evidence and should be considered by the courts. They can provide insights into the mental state and behavior of the accused.

Q: What does it mean when a High Court order is set aside by the Supreme Court?

A: When the Supreme Court sets aside a High Court order, it means that the Supreme Court disagrees with the High Court’s decision and nullifies it. The case is then sent back to the lower court or the relevant authority for further action as per the Supreme Court’s directions.