Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.20 seconds)
Dr. Irfan Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ... on 6 September, 2024 cites

Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr on 13 September, 2012

22. Also, in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, it has been categorically laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that if it appears to the Court that there is a ground for 12 presuming that the accused has committed an offence and the facts and ingredients of the Section exists for an offence, then it would proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly. It is also evident that at the initial stage during framing of charge, if there exits strong suspicion by the Court that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to neglect the facts and material available on record and say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 1303 - S Kumar - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977

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 13 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 may refer to the well-settled law laid down by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533] : (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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Section 228, then in such a 14 situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under Section 228 and not under Section 227.‖
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1190 - N L Untwalia - Full Document
1   2 Next