422 [2019] 14
SUPREME COURT S.C.R. 422
REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.
A BHAWNA BAI
v.
GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 1820 of 2019)
B DECEMBER 03, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI, A .S. BOPANNA AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.228 – Framing of
charges – Standard of proof – Held: At the stage of framing the
C
charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused – While evaluating the materials,
strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against
the accused is to be seen.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.228 – Charges framed
D
against accused-respondent under s.302 r/w s.34 IPC – Prosecution
case was that dead body of the husband of the appellant-complainant
was found in the field of first respondent – When the appellant
came to know, she went running towards her husband’s dead body,
but the son of first respondent caught hold of her and forcibly locked
E her in a room in his house and did not allow her to go near the
dead body of her husband – The allegations in the charge sheet
suggested that the accused-respondents had earlier quarrelled with
deceased thereby suggesting a motive for the crime – Though, the
body of deceased was found in the field of first respondent-accused,
he did not inform the family of deceased nor informed the police
F
about the same – Trial court framed charges under s.302 r/w s.34
IPC against the accused-respondents – Accused-respondents filed
revision – High Court quashed the charges – Aggrieved complainant
filed instant appeal – Held: As per s.226, the public prosecutor is
required to open the case before the Sessions Court by describing
G the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence,
he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused – In this case, upon
hearing the parties and considering the allegations in the charge
sheet, the Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there were sufficient
grounds for presuming that the accused committed the offence
H
422
BHAWNA BAI v. GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS 423
punishable under s.302 IPC r/w s.34 IPC – For framing the charges A
under s.228, the judge was not required to record detailed reasons
– High Court was not right in interfering with the order of the trial
court framing the charges against accused-respondents – Impugned
order is set aside – Trial case is restored – Penal Code, 1860 –
s.302 r/w s.34.
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. As per the allegations in the charge sheet, on
the date of occurrence, the accused-respondents went with
deceased to the farm of first respondent for ploughing the land
with tractor and that all the three consumed liquor together at C
the place of incident. Thus, as per the allegations in the charge
sheet, the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused-
respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though, the body of deceased was found
in the field of first respondent-accused, he did not inform the
family of deceased nor informed the police about the same. The
allegations in the charge sheet suggested that accused- D
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had earlier quarrelled with deceased
and thereby suggesting a motive for the crime. [Para 11]
[427-E-H]
2. Though the circumstances alleged in the charge sheet
are to be established during the trial by adducing the evidence, E
the allegations in the charge sheet show a prima facie case against
the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2. The circumstances alleged
by the prosecution indicate that there are sufficient grounds for
proceedings against the accused. At the stage of framing the
charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for F
proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials,
strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case
against the accused is to be seen. [Para 12][428-A-B]
3. As per Section 226 Cr.P.C., the public prosecutor is
required to open the case before the Sessions Court by describing G
the charge brought against the accused and stating by what
evidence, he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. For
framing the charges under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not
required to record detailed reasons. At the stage of framing the
H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.
A charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry;
only prima facie case is to be seen. Upon hearing the parties and
based upon the allegations and taking note of the allegations in
the charge sheet, the Sessions Judge was satisfied that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and framed
B the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2. While
so, the High Court was not right in interfering with the order of
the trial court framing the charges against accused-respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC
and the High Court, erred in quashing the charges framed against
C the accused. The impugned order cannot therefore be sustained
and is liable to be set aside. [Paras 13, 15, 16][428-C-D; 431-B;
D-G]
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9
SCC 460 : [2012] 7 SCR 988; Dinesh Tiwari v. State of
D Uttar Pradesh and another (2014) 13 SCC 137 : [2014]
8 SCR 207; Knati Bhadra Shah and another v. State of
West Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722 : [2000] 1 SCR 27 –
relied on.
E Case Law Reference
[2012] 7 SCR 988 relied on Para 14
[2014] 8 SCR 207 relied on Para 15
[2000] 1 SCR 27 relied on Para 16
F
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1820 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2019 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Cr. R. No. 402 of 2019.
G Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Adv. for the Appellant.
Santosh Kumar, Shekhar Kumar, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Mushtaq
Ahmad, Harsh Parashar, Ms. Tanvi Bhatnagar, Chanakya Sharma, Advs.
for the Respondents.
H
BHAWNA BAI v. GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS 425
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
R. BANUMATHI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and final order
dated 25.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore B
Bench in Criminal Revision No. 402 of 2019 in and by which the High
Court has quashed the charges framed by the trial court/Additional
Sessions Judge against respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:-
On 24.12.2015, the husband of the complainant-Gopal Saran at C
about 06.00 pm went saying to prepare food as he is going outside to
plough the field and shall return by 09.00-10.00 pm. Even by 12.00 mid
night, Gopal Saran did not return home; then his wife Bhawna Bai,
appellant herein tried to contact him over his mobile; but he did not receive
the call. The appellant informed her father-in-law who tried to search D
the deceased and there was no information about the deceased. On the
next morning at about 08.00 am, the appellant-complainant and her family
members came to know from the neighbours that Gopal Saran was lying
in the tank//hose in the field of the first respondent-Ghanshyam. The
appellant has alleged that when she tried to approach her husband then
Ganesh s/o Mohanlal Kushwah prevented her going near her husband E
and locked her in a room and did not allow her to see her husband. The
dead body of Gopal Saran was taken to government hospital. The
appellant-complainant alleged that without informing her, post-mortem
of her husband was conducted. Merg No.94 of 2015 was registered for
investigation under Section 174 Crl.P.C.; but no case was registered F
against any person.
4. On 31.12.2015, the appellant made a written complaint before
the Superintendent of Police, Khargaon and in spite of the same, no
case was registered. Thereafter, the complainant-appellant filed a
complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), G
Kasrawad under Section 156(3) Crl.P.C. on 12.04.2016. The learned
ACJM accepted the complaint and directed the Officer-in-Charge, P.S.
Kasrawad to register the FIR under Section 302 IPC and proceed with
the investigation. FIR was registered in Crime No.145 of 2016 under
H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.
A Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Challenging the direction of
ACJM to register a FIR, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed revision
before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleswar in Criminal Revision
No.300051 of 2016. The said revision petition was dismissed vide order
dated 27.10.2016.
B 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 have prayed for
anticipatory bail and the same was dismissed by the learned Special
Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, West Nimad, Mandleswar
vide order dated 10.09.2018. Being aggrieved, respondent Nos.1 and 2
filed appeal before the High Court and the High Court had granted
anticipatory bail to them vide order dated 19.09.2018. Against the grant
C of anticipatory bail, the appellant-complainant has filed SLP(Crl.) Diary
No.39785/2018 before the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court
by order dated 14.12.2018 has issued notice. In the meanwhile, charge
sheet has been filed against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 under
Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on 26.09.2018. Upon hearing
the prosecution and also the respondents-accused, vide order dated
D
12.12.2018, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleswar
has found that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
accused and framed the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.1
and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
6. Challenging the order of framing charges, respondent Nos.1
E and 2 have filed revision before the High Court. Holding that, while
framing charges, the court should apply the judicial mind and should give
reasons in concise manner for framing charges and that the trial court
has failed to apply its mind while framing charges, the High Court vide
impugned order dated 25.02.2019 has quashed the charges against
F respondent Nos.1 and 2 and discharged them. Being aggrieved, the
appellant-complainant has preferred this appeal.
7. Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has submitted that there are circumstances like “last seen
together”; “recovery of dead body”; “not informing the family of the
victim immediately upon discovery of dead body”; “not informing the
G
police”; “recovery of other belongings of dead body including tractor”
and such other circumstances connecting the accused-respondent Nos.1
and 2 with the death of Gopal Saran and considering those circumstances,
the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge satisfied himself that there
are sufficient ground for framing charges against the accused. The learned
H counsel submitted that when the trial judge has so satisfied that there
BHAWNA BAI v. GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS 427
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
are sufficient grounds for framing the charges against the accused, in A
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court ought not to have
interfered and quashed the charges framed by the trial court.
8. Mr. Harsh Parashar, learned counsel appearing for the State of
Madhya Pradesh reiterated the contentions and submitted that the
averments in the charge sheet and the circumstances indicated thereon B
are sufficient to prima facie link respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the
occurrence and while so, the High Court erred in setting aside the order
of the Second Additional Sessions Judge and quashing the charges.
9. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the accused-
respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that even if the averments in the C
charge sheet are accepted, no prima facie case is made out against the
accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and there was non-application of judicial
mind by the learned trial judge and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly quashed the charges
framed against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the impugned
order therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity. D
10. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused
the impugned order and materials on record.
11. As per the allegations in the charge sheet, on the date of
occurrence i.e. 24.12.2015, the accused-respondents Ghanshyam and
Bhagwan went with deceased Gopal Saran to the farm of Ghanshyam E
for ploughing the land with tractor and that all the three consumed liquor
together at the place of incident. Thus, as per the allegations in the charge
sheet, the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused-
respondent Nos.1 and 2. As per the statement of Usha, wife of
Ghanshyam and Nisha, daughter of Ghanshyam, the accused-respondent
F
Nos.1 and 2 had returned home at 09.00 pm in the night of 24.12.2015.
Though, the body of deceased was found in the field of respondent-
accused Ghanshyam, he did not inform the family of deceased Gopal
Saran nor informed the police about the same. In the complaint filed by
the appellant before the Magistrate, the appellant has alleged that “when
she went running near to her husband’s dead body, Ganesh son of G
Ghanshyam caught hold of her and forcibly locked her in a room
in his house and did not allow her to go near the dead body of her
husband”. The allegations in the charge sheet also suggest that the
accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 had earlier quarrelled with deceased
Gopal Saran and thereby suggesting a motive for the crime.
H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.
A 12. Though the circumstances alleged in the charge sheet are to
be established during the trial by adducing the evidence, the allegations
in the charge sheet show a prima facie case against the accused-
respondent Nos.1 and 2. The circumstances alleged by the prosecution
indicate that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the
accused. At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie case is to
B
be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at
this stage. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While
evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only
prima facie case against the accused is to be seen.
C 13. Chapter XVIII Crl.P.C. deals with “Trial before a Court of
Session”. As per Section 226 Crl.P.C., the public prosecutor is required
to open the case before the Sessions Court by describing the charge
brought against the accused and stating by what evidence, he proposes
to prove the guilt of the accused. Section 227 Crl.P.C. deals with discharge
D and it reads as under:-
“227. Discharge.—If, upon consideration of the record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing
the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf,
the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for
E proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused
and record his reasons for so doing.”
14. Considering the scope of Sections 227 and 228 Crl.P.C., in
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9 SCC 460,
the Supreme Court held as under:-
F “17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial
court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is
discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these
provisions, the court is required to consider the “record of the
case” and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the
G parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to
the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge.
Once the facts and ingredients of the section exists, then the court
would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against
the accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption
H is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court
BHAWNA BAI v. GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS 429
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the A
facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such
jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case. There
is a fine distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228
of the Code. Section 227 is the expression of a definite opinion
and judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to
B
say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should form
an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an
offence, is an approach which is impermissible in terms of Section
228 of the Code.
………..
C
19. At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned
not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has
committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty.
All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the
facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or
not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage. We D
may refer to the well-settled law laid down by this Court in State
of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39: (SCC pp. 41-42,
para 4)
“4. Under Section 226 of the Code while opening the case for
the prosecution the Prosecutor has got to describe the charge E
against the accused and state by what evidence he proposes
to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter comes at the
initial stage the duty of the court to consider the record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith and to hear the
submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. F
The Judge has to pass thereafter an order either under Section
227 or Section 228 of the Code. If ‘the Judge considers that
there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused,
he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so
doing’, as enjoined by Section 227. If, on the other hand, ‘the
Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the G
accused has committed an offence which— … (b) is
exclusively triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a
charge against the accused’, as provided in Section 228. Reading
the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to
be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.
A of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence 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. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage
of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive
balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible
B
with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test
and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a
finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not
exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under
Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the court
C is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction
of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his
conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter
remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of
proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial
stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to
D
think that there is 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. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is
to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law
E governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the
accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved.
But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether
the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence
which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of
the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in
F
cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any,
cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then
there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.
An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what
will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor
G advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by
one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or
innocence of the accused are something 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 the other hand, it is
so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or
H
BHAWNA BAI v. GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS 431
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally A
the order which will have to be made will be one under Section
228 and not under Section 227.””
15. After referring to Amit Kapoor, in Dinesh Tiwari v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another (2014) 13 SCC 137, the Supreme Court
held that for framing charge under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not B
required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed.
On perusal of record and hearing of parties, if the judge is of the opinion
that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has
committed the offence triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame
the charge against the accused for such offence.
C
16. As discussed above, in the present case, upon hearing the
parties and considering the allegations in the charge sheet, the learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there were
sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
The order dated 12.12.2018 framing the charges is not a detailed order. D
For framing the charges under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not
required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage
of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate
enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen. As held in Knati Bhadra
Shah and another v. State of West Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722, while E
exercising power under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required
record his reasons for framing the charges against the accused. Upon
hearing the parties and based upon the allegations and taking note of the
allegations in the charge sheet, the learned Second Additional Sessions
Judge was satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused and framed the charges against the accused-respondent F
Nos.1 and 2. While so, the High Court was not right in interfering with
the order of the trial court framing the charges against the accused-
respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34
IPC and the High Court, in our view, erred in quashing the charges
framed against the accused. The impugned order cannot therefore be G
sustained and is liable to be set aside.
17. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2019 passed
by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore Bench in Criminal
Revision No.402 of 2019 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. Sessions
Trial Case No.ST/150/2018 is restored and Second Additional Sessions H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.
A Judge, Mandleswar, West Nimad, Madhya Pradesh shall proceed with
the matter in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.
B
C
D
E
F
G
H