Brief Facts
- The case pertained to a blind murder wherein the Respondent No. 1 along with Respondent No. 2 and others were alleged to have conspired to kill the deceased through unknown assailants.
- After registration of FIR, investigation was conducted and statements of number of persons were recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. Even a Psychological Evaluation including Psychological Profiling, Polygraph Testing and Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature Profiling (BEOS) of Respondent and others were conducted. The report of forensic examination pointed towards involvement of the private Respondents in the alleged offence.
- Prior to the framing of charge, the Accused filed an application for discharge before the Ld. Trial Court and the same was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court. Thereafter, the High Court set aside the Order of the Trial Court and discharged the Accused persons. Appellant challenged the order passed by the High Court before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- • What should be the role of the Court at the time of deciding the application for discharge of an Accused. Whether appreciation of evidence is possible at such stage?
Held
- The Apex Court allowed the Appeal and quashed the order of the High Court.
- The Apex Court even relied on the judgement passed in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191, wherein the Court discussed in detail at to what is required to be considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application.
- The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case in which the Trial Court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately after filing of chargesheet, application for discharge was filed. 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. 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.
- A perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Court shows that some of the material collected by the Investigating Agency filed alongwith chargesheet has been referred to in a sketchy manner. However, from a perusal of the record, it is evident that statements have not be noticed either in their entirety or only part of the statements recorded on a particular day has been noticed and the statements recorded either before or after, have not been referred to.
- Though Psychological Evaluation test report only may not be sufficient to convict an accused but certainly a material piece of evidence. Despite this material on record, the High Court could not have opined that the case was not made out even for framing of charge, for which only prima facie case is to be seen.
- If the facts of the case are examined in the light of law laid down by this Court on the subject, it is evident that the High Court has not even referred to the evidence collected by Investigating Agency produced alongwith chargesheet in its entirety. Rather there is selective reference to the statements of some of the persons recorded during investigation. It shows that there was total non-application of mind. The High Court had exercised the jurisdiction in a manner which is not vested in it to scuttle the trial of a heinous crime.
Relevant Para No.
- 11, 12, 14, 19 and 20
