Published on: February 7, 2024 at 16:12 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Dilawar Balu Kurane V. State of Maharashtra (2002)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the Criminal Court while considering the framing of the charges under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has to limit with the fact that whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. It is submitted that the test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. It is held that if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
12. Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra