Published on: December 26, 2023 at 12:57 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Union of India V. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Criminal Courts at the stage of framing of Charges are required to examine the record produced by the prosecution. It is held that Accused is not confer any right to produce any document at this stage of framing of charge. It is held that Criminal Court must take cognizance to look at the circumstantial evidence in its entirety so as to form an opinion at the stage of Framing of Charges. The Courts have also been cautioned to not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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. By and large however 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.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court 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, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should 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