Date of the Judgment: 18 May 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 555
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a High Court interfere with a Trial Court’s decision to frame charges against an accused by re-evaluating evidence at the stage of discharge? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent criminal appeal, emphasizing that a mini-trial is impermissible at the stage of framing charges. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal, overturned a Bombay High Court order that had discharged the accused, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review at the stage of framing charges.
Case Background
The case originated from an FIR registered on 14 May 2006, at Lonawala City Police Station, concerning the murder of Manmohan Singh Sukhdev Singh Virdi. The deceased was found dead in his bedroom at his residence in Lonawala. The police investigation led to a chargesheet against Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and Waheeda Hussain Shattaf (Respondent nos. 1 and 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 murder the deceased through unknown assailants.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 14 May 2006 | FIR No. 46 of 2006 registered at Lonawala City Police Station for the murder of Manmohan Singh Sukhdev Singh Virdi. |
| 31 May 2007 | Psychological Evaluation including Psychological Profiling, Polygraph Testing and Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature Profiling (BEOS) of Respondent No. 1 conducted. |
| 09 December 2009 | Chargesheet filed against Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, Waheeda Hussain Shattaf, and Zaanish Khan. |
| 21 February 2012 | Trial Court dismissed the discharge application filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. |
| 17 July 2013 | High Court of Judicature at Bombay set aside the Trial Court’s order and discharged Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. |
Course of Proceedings
Following the filing of the chargesheet, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Pune. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 then filed a discharge application, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 21 February 2012. Subsequently, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in a revision application, set aside the Trial Court’s order and discharged Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court by the appellant.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to the established legal principle regarding the scope of judicial review at the stage of framing charges. The Court emphasized that at this stage, the judge must only assess whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court cited Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with discharge, and stated that the court should not conduct a mini-trial or delve into the pros and cons of the matter. The Supreme Court also referred to Section 239 CrPC, which deals with discharge in warrant cases, and reiterated that the court must assume the material brought on record by the prosecution is true, and evaluate if it discloses the ingredients necessary to constitute the offense.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions
- The appellant argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial by referring to select statements from the chargesheet, which is beyond its jurisdiction at the stage of considering a discharge application.
- The appellant emphasized that the High Court failed to consider the Psychological Evaluation, including Psychological Profiling, Polygraph Testing, and Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature Profiling (BEOS) conducted on Respondent Nos. 1 and their aides, which pointed towards 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, to support their argument.
Respondent’s Submissions
- The respondents argued that it was a case of blind murder with no eyewitnesses and no enmity between them and the deceased.
- They contended that the prosecution had built a false story without any supporting material and that the Trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction to discharge them.
- The respondents claimed that they were falsely implicated and that continuing the trial would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
State’s Submissions
- The State argued that the High Court’s order was not legally sustainable because, at the stage of considering a discharge application, the court cannot appreciate evidence.
- The State submitted that only a prima facie case needs to be seen at the stage of framing charges.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| High Court exceeded its jurisdiction | High Court conducted a mini-trial by referring to select statements | Appellant |
| High Court failed to consider Psychological Evaluation reports | Appellant | |
| No case made out against the accused | Case is of blind murder, no eye witness, no enmity | Respondent |
| Falsely implicated, trial would be abuse of process | Respondent | |
| High Court order not sustainable | Cannot appreciate evidence at discharge stage | State |
| Only prima facie case to be seen at charge stage | State |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The core issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Trial Court and discharging the accused at the stage of framing of charge?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Trial Court and discharging the accused at the stage of framing of charge? | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of the Trial Court. | The High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial and re-evaluating evidence, which is not permissible at the stage of framing charges. The High Court also failed to consider all the evidence, including the Psychological Evaluation reports. |
Authorities
Cases
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Dr. Maroti S/o.Kashinath Pimpalkar | Supreme Court of India | The appellant relied on this case to argue that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial. |
| P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to reiterate the principles that guide the court while considering discharge applications under Section 227 CrPC, emphasizing that only a prima facie case needs to be established. |
| State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to highlight that at the stage of discharge under Section 239 CrPC, the court must assume the prosecution’s material is true and assess if it discloses the necessary ingredients of the offense, without conducting a mini-trial. |
| State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to clarify that the court should not delve deep into the matter to determine if the materials would warrant a conviction, but rather if there is a ground for presuming that an offense has been committed. |
Statutes
| Statute | Section | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 161 | Examination of witnesses by police. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 164 | Recording of confessions and statements. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 227 | Discharge of the accused. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 239 | When accused shall be discharged. |
Judgment
Treatment of Submissions
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| High Court conducted a mini-trial by referring to select statements | The Court agreed that the High Court had indeed conducted a mini-trial by selectively referring to statements and not considering the evidence in its entirety. |
| High Court failed to consider Psychological Evaluation reports | The Court noted that the High Court had completely ignored the Psychological Evaluation reports, which were a crucial piece of evidence. |
| Case is of blind murder, no eye witness, no enmity | The Court acknowledged that it was a case of blind murder, but emphasized that the circumstances and the material collected by the Investigating Agency were crucial for determining the involvement of the accused. |
| Falsely implicated, trial would be abuse of process | The Court rejected this argument, stating that a prima facie case was made out against the accused, and that the trial should proceed. |
| Cannot appreciate evidence at discharge stage | The Court agreed that at the stage of considering a discharge application, the court cannot appreciate evidence. |
| Only prima facie case to be seen at charge stage | The Court upheld this submission, stating that at the stage of framing charges, only a prima facie case needs to be seen. |
Treatment of Authorities
The Court relied on the following authorities:
- State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Dr. Maroti S/o.Kashinath Pimpalkar: The Court agreed with the appellant’s reliance on this case, stating that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction.
- P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398: The Court followed this case to reiterate the principles that guide the court while considering discharge applications under Section 227 CrPC, emphasizing that only a prima facie case needs to be established.
- State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515: The Court followed this case to highlight that at the stage of discharge under Section 239 CrPC, the court must assume the prosecution’s material is true and assess if it discloses the necessary ingredients of the offense, without conducting a mini-trial.
- State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709: The Court followed this case to clarify that the court should not delve deep into the matter to determine if the materials would warrant a conviction, but rather if there is a ground for presuming that an offense has been committed.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The High Court’s selective reference to evidence, ignoring crucial aspects.
- The High Court’s failure to consider the Psychological Evaluation reports, which indicated the involvement of the accused.
- The established legal principle that at the stage of framing charges, the court should not conduct a mini-trial.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Error by High Court | 40% |
| Ignoring crucial evidence | 35% |
| Established legal principles | 25% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in discharging the accused?
Step 1: Review of High Court Order: The High Court selectively referred to statements and ignored crucial evidence like Psychological Evaluation reports.
Step 2: Application of Legal Principles: At the stage of framing charges, a mini-trial is not permissible, and only a prima facie case needs to be established.
Step 3: Conclusion: The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to consider all material evidence, thus the discharge order is set aside.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had overstepped its bounds by re-evaluating the evidence. The Court noted that the High Court had selectively referred to the statements of some witnesses while completely ignoring the Psychological Evaluation reports. The Court reiterated that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only required to see if a prima facie case is made out against the accused, and a detailed analysis of the evidence is not required. The Court observed that the High Court had failed to apply its mind to the material on record and had exercised its jurisdiction in a manner not vested in it.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“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.”
“Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. 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.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this judgment.
Key Takeaways
- High Courts should not conduct a mini-trial while considering discharge applications.
- All material evidence, including expert reports, must be considered at the stage of framing charges.
- The scope of judicial review at the stage of framing charges is limited to determining if a prima facie case exists.
- Interference by the High Court is warranted only if continuing the trial would be an abuse of the process of the court.
Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The case was remanded back to the Trial Court to proceed with the trial.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that at the stage of framing charges, a court should not conduct a mini-trial or re-evaluate evidence. The court should only assess if a prima facie case exists, based on the material provided by the prosecution. This judgment reinforces the established legal position on the scope of judicial review at the stage of framing charges.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors. clarifies the limited scope of judicial review at the stage of framing charges. The Court emphasized that High Courts should not conduct a mini-trial or re-evaluate evidence at this stage. By setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court ensured that the trial would proceed based on the prima facie case established by the prosecution.
Category
✓ Criminal Law
✓ Murder
✓ Framing of Charges
✓ Discharge
✓ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
✓ Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
✓ Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
FAQ
Q: What is a discharge application in a criminal case?
A: A discharge application is filed by the accused seeking to be released from the charges before the trial begins, arguing that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against them.
Q: What is the role of the court at the stage of framing charges?
A: At the stage of framing charges, the court has to assess whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused based on the material provided by the prosecution. The court is not expected to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence.
Q: Can a High Court interfere with a Trial Court’s decision to frame charges?
A: Yes, a High Court can interfere, but only if the Trial Court’s decision is based on a misapplication of the law or if there is a strong reason to hold that continuing the trial would be an abuse of the process of the court. The High Court cannot re-evaluate the evidence at this stage.
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 analysis of the evidence, similar to what happens during a full trial. It is not allowed at the stage of framing charges because the court is only required to see if a prima facie case exists, and a detailed analysis of the evidence is done during the trial.
Q: What is the significance of the Psychological Evaluation report in this case?
A: The Psychological Evaluation report was a crucial piece of evidence that indicated the involvement of the accused in the crime. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had failed to consider this report while discharging the accused.
Source: Captain Manjit Singh Virdi