Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Dipakbhai Jagdishchndra Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 24 April, 2019
9. The Supreme Court has recently in the case of Dipakbhai
Jagdishchandra Patel vs State of Gujarat and Another, decided on
24.4.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 714 of 2019 made observations regarding
the law relating to framing of charge as well as discharge has held that all
that which is required in such cases is that the Court must be satisfied that
with the material available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial.
Even a strong suspicion would suffice for that purpose, provided that such
strong suspicion must be founded on some material which can be translated
into evidence at the stage of trial. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment
are reproduced hereunder:
Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978
10. The Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samal and Ors., AIR 1979 SC 366 has held that the Court has the power to
sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a
prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. It has been further
held that where the materials placed before the Court disclosed a 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, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to some
suspicion, but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within
his right to discharge the accused. It is a settled law that the presumption
howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. Relevant portion of the
aforementioned judgment is reproduced as hereunder:
State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977
21. At the stage of framing the charge in
accordance with the principles which have been
laid down by this Court, what the Court is
expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post
office. The Court must indeed sift the material
before it. The material to be sifted would be the
material which is produced and relied upon by
the prosecution. The sifting is not to be
meticulous in the sense that the Court dons the
mantle of the Trial Judge hearing arguments
after the entire evidence has been adduced after
a full-fledged trial and the question is not
whether the prosecution has made out the case
for the conviction of the Accused. All that is
required is, the Court must be satisfied that with
the materials available, a case is made out for
the Accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion
suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be
founded on some material. The material must be
such as can be translated into evidence at the
stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the
pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral
notions of the Judge that here is a case where it
is possible that Accused has committed the
offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion
which is premised on some material which
commends itself to the court as sufficient to
entertain the prima facie view that the Accused
has committed the offence."
1