Ramdeo And Anr. vs The State Of Rajasthan

Author- Sumit Kumar, University Five Year Law College, Jaipur

KEYWORDS

Section 227CrPC, Framing of charges, Section 228 CrPC, Discharge, Section 482 CrPC

CASE DETAILS

       i)            Judgement Cause Title / Case Name

Ramdeo And Anr. vs The State Of Rajasthan

     ii)            Case Number

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 916 of 1992

   iii)            Judgement Date

31 March 1993

    iv)            Court

Rajasthan High Court

      v)            Quorum / Constitution of Bench

Single Judge Bench

    vi)            Author / Name of Judges

Justice M.R. CALLA

  vii)            Citation

1993 1 RLW(Raj) 576

viii)            Legal Provisions Involved

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227, 228, 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 147, 149, 302, 32

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

In the Indian Criminal Procedural System, charge framing is a crucial step in determining the sufficiency of evidence before the trial for the initiation of trial. As per the language of Section 227 and 228 CrPC, consideration is necessary to determine whether the material available on record is sufficient to show the indulgence of the accused in the alleged act. The present case revolves around the existence and value of just consideration of the trial court before framing charges.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

  1. The present petition u/s 482 CrPC has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.05.1992 which was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, Camp Laxmangarh.
  2. The order was related to the framing of charges against the petitioners for offences punishable u/s 147, 302/149 and 323 in Sessions Case No. 77/89.

Factual Background of the Case

  1. On 22.06.1989, a First Information Report (FIR) numbered 74/89 was filed at the Kathumar Police Station, based on the written report filed by the complainant Ramdayal. The report alleged the existence of a physical altercation between the complainant and several persons named Yadram, Bhikki, and Badan Singh in respect of the demolition of a common boundary wall which was used for storage of local manure.
  2. When an alarm was raised by Ramdayal, his younger brother, Amarchand, helped him survive the scare while other people named Ramlal, Shyam Lal, Bhamboli, Phoolchand, Birdiram pacified the matter. The aforesaid people sat in the room before the occurrence of the incident when Badan Sadan gave a lathi blow to Amarchand on his head leading to his collapse and Bhikki and Yadram also struck lathi blows on his chest and abdomen.
  3. When some others tried to rescue Amarchand, Badan Singh went to the roof of his house with a gun and along with accused petitioners named Ramdeo and Prabhu Dayal pelted stones from there to prevent Amarchand from being taken away. After some request, they allowed Amarchand to be taken to the Hospital at Nagar and later he was taken to Alwar where he died.
  4. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, a challan was filed and based on the challan, learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Alwar, upon hearing the arguments, passed the order on 18.5.1992. Charges u/s 302/147, 149/302 and 323 IPC were framed against Badan Singh, Yadram and Bhikki while charges u/s 147, 302/149 and 323 IPC were framed against the accused petitioners.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in framing charges under the impugned order?
  2. Whether the charges framed were prima facie evident from the circumstances of the case?

PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

  1. Learned counsel Mr S.R. Bajwa and Shri Biri Singh appeared for the petitioners. It was submitted that the trial court, without applying the legal mind, had passed the impugned order and framed the charges against the petitioners.
  2. It is unclear from such an impugned order whether the trial court had given due consideration as to the fact of the existence of ingredients of the offences for which accused petitioners have been to be charged. It is not even mentioned in the impugned order that charges mentioned against petitioners were prime facie evident from the material on record.
  3. It is further submitted that such an order may not be a detailed order providing elaborate reasons but it must have at least shown the application of the judicial mind of the court in passing such an order.
  4. Learned counsel brought attention towards item No. 2 contained in charge that the present petitioners gave a lathi blow to Amarkant, causing his death. It is admitted that the trial court had not framed the charge u/s 302 IPC against present petitioners but charges framed against them are not consistent with the case of the prosecution as there is no allegation of death by present petitioners as such allegations were made against other accused. This clearly shows that the charges were not framed inuniformlyHe also placed reliance on the case of Niranjan Singh vs. Jitendra [i], in which the Supreme Court analyzed the word ‘consideration’ in the scope of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. It was stated by the Supreme Court that the enquiry should be limited to ascertain whether the facts from records of the case constitute an offence or not. For this consideration, the court must weigh the material on record and document relied on by the prosecution.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  1. Learned counsel S.R. Yadav appeared for the respondent. He submitted that the order dated 18.5.1992 in itself signified the application of mind of the trial court in the framing of charges as the court had made a distinction between the charges framed against Badan Singh, Yad Ram and Bhikki(which included charge u/s 302 IPC) and against Ramdeo and Prabhu Daya(no charge u/s 302 IPC).
  2. It is also submitted that the trial court might not have expressly stated in such order regarding the existence of ingredients of offences or consideration of case records and documents but the distinction of charges clearly stated that there was complete application of judicial mind without which no such difference could be made.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973–

  1. Section 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 on this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”[ii]
  2. Section 228- “Framing of charge:-
  • If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge thinks that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-

 (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence by the procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.[iii]

  • Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.”[iv]

3. Section 482- “Saving of inherent powers of High Court:-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”[v]

Indian Penal Code, 1860–

  1. Section 147- “Punishment for rioting:-Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”[vi]
  2. Section 149- “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of other ffence committed in prosecution of common object:-If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”[vii]
  3. Section 302 – “Punishment for murder:-Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.”[viii]
  4. Section 323- “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt:- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”[ix]

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

  1. It was held that the primary reading of Sec. 226 CrPC states that discharge of the accused is to be allowed upon consideration of case record, submitted documents and submissions from both sides. If the judicial mind is not applied objectively at this stage, the accused has to face an unwanted trial.
  2. Though the court was not expected to provide detailed reasoning, the order must have installed confidence that the consideration of the court to frame charges was based on reasoning. Sec 228 CrPC provides that in the absence of such consideration, no opinion can be made as to grounds for concluding the commission of offence by the accused. So, consideration of the case record and documents is a necessity for framing the charges.
  3. If it is not apparent from the order that such consideration was made then trial cannot proceed based on charges so framed. The court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Niranjan Singh vs. Jitendra (supra) and went through the submissions from both sides, the record available, the impugned order passed by the trial court and the charge as framed against the petitioners.
  4. The judge thought that the trial court had not complied with its procedural duty of evaluation of materials for the determination of facts necessary to constitute the offences. The failure on the part of the trial court leads to the framing of charges inconsistent with its impugned order. It will not serve the interest of the petitioners or the prosecution if the trial court is allowed to proceed with the trial against the petitioners based on such framed charges.
  5. As per Section 227 and 228 CrPC, evaluating the material and documents on record for determination of sufficiency of facts on their face value to disclose the existence of required ingredients of offences or not, is a pre-requisite and condition precedent. If these requisite conditions are not complied with for consideration of the question on the point of framing of charge, such charge framed cannot be sustained.
  6.  In the instant case, it appears that there is complete non-adherence to the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 CrPC, so it is fair to remand this matter back to the trial court. So, the impugned order dated 18.05.1992 and the charges framed against the petitioners are set aside. Also, the court directed the trial court to reconsider the materials, documents and record of the case and then pass an appropriate order in compliance with the provisions of Section 227 & 228 CrPC for framing of charges against the present petitioners and subsequently proceed as per the law.
  7. The trial court is directed to decide about framing the charges as soon as possible but it should be done within one month from the date of receipt of the record and it shall not be influenced by any kind of observations made in this order on the merits on the question of framing of charge. The present petition u/s 482 CrPC succeeded and it was disposed accordingly.
    1.  

CONCLUSION& COMMENTS

So, the court decided that such an order of framing of charges was incorrect and directed the trial court to reconsider the material on record to decide the case on merits. 

In my opinion, the case accurately shows the haste nature of trial courts in framing charges merely upon the case of prosecution without even considering the evidence produced before it. The trial courts, being the initial court of justice, should comply with the procedural technicalities and refrain from showing any kind of haste or rashness at any stage in the criminal trial system.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

  • Niranjan Singh vs. Jitendra (AIR 1990 SC 1962)

Important StatutesReferred

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860

ENDNOTES:

[i]Niranjan Singh vs. Jitendra AIR 1990 SC 1962

[ii] See The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §227.

[iii] See The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §228(1).

[iv] See The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §228(2).

[v] See The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §482.

[vi] See The Indian Penal Code, 1860, §147.

[vii] See The Indian Penal Code, 1860, §149.

[viii] See The Indian Penal Code, 1860, §302.

[ix] See The Indian Penal Code, 1860, §323.

Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture