Supreme Court of India
RAM PRAKASH CHADHAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 522
- Decided
- 15 July 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- C T RAVIKUMAR
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s order to proceed against the appellant was based on unfounded suspicion and that no prima facie case of criminal conspiracy existed, warranting discharge under Section 227, Cr.PC.
Summary
The appellant, Ram Prakash Chadha, was charged in a custodial death case (FIR No.371/1993) with offences including murder and criminal conspiracy, and he sought discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.PC. The trial court rejected his discharge application, relying on alleged suspicions that he had facilitated the police’s custody of the deceased. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scope of "the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith" and held that only prosecution‑produced material may be considered at the Section 227 stage. The Court found no allegation or evidence of an agreement between the appellant and the police that would satisfy the ingredients of Section 120B IPC. Consequently, the trial court’s finding was based on mere suppositions and lacked factual support. The High Court’s order upholding the trial court’s decision was also set aside. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, discharged the appellant, and quashed the orders of the lower courts.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of the trial court's finding to proceed against the appellant under Section 227, Cr.PC, given the absence of material support.
- The proper interpretation of "the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith" for purposes of a discharge application.
- Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B, IPC against the appellant.
- Whether the High Court erred in failing to apply the legal standards for discharge under Section 227, Cr.PC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 173, s. 207, s. 208, s. 209, s. 227, s. 232
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120A, s. 120B, s. 217, s. 218, s. 302, s. 330, s. 34, s. 343, s. 392
Subjects
Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The record of the case and the documents submitted therewithDischargeApplication for dischargeSuppositions and suspicionsMaterials produced by the prosecutionDuty and obligation of the CourtDisclosure of reasons by the Court for rejection of discharge application
Judgment
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1155 : 2024 INSC 522
Ram Prakash Chadha
v.
The State of Uttar Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No. 2395 of 2023)
15 July 2024
[C.T. Ravikumar* and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of
offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34, IPC. An
application for discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC was rejected by the
Trial Court. Whether the findings of the trial Court on the ground
to proceed against the appellant is based on suppositions and
suspicions, having no foundational support from the materials
produced by the prosecution.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Discharge – In
the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission
of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34,
IPC – Appellant sought discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC – The
said application for discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC, was rejected
by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(CBI) – The appellant filed an application u/s.482 of Cr.PC
before the High Court, however, same was dismissed by the
High Court – Propriety:
Held: In the final report filed in FIR No.371 of 1993 viz., in the
custodial death case, the record revealed that the essence of the
accusation is commission of custodial death owing to the torture
to which victim-deceased was subjected to, from 17.07.1993
to 23.07.1993 – A scanning of the charge as also the other
materials including the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s.
161, Cr.PC, would reveal that there is absolute absence of any
accusation or even an insinuation that the appellant had played
any role in torturing victim – The implication of the appellant in the
crime is with the aid of s.120B and s.34, IPC – An agreement
referred to in Section 120A, IPC may be expressed or implied or
* Author
1156 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in part express and in part implied – However, no record of the
case or documents submitted therewith carry such an allegation/
accusation against the appellant – The findings of the Trial Court on
the ground to proceed against the appellant is based on suppositions
and suspicions, having no foundational support from the materials
produced by the prosecution – It is to be noted that it is nobody’s
case that the appellant was in the Police Station or informed of the
sufferance from chest pain of accused – In another case, Crime
No.351/1993 u/s. 392, IPC the deceased was only a witness and that
the amount in cash and the draft involved was that of the appellant – It
is also the case of the prosecution that the said case was registered,
at the instance of the appellant against unknown persons – Hence,
when the appellant who lost the money went to Police Station along
with the witness thereof, how can it be presumed by the Court as a
strong case for suspicion for commission of the offence of criminal
conspiracy – When there is no case for the prosecution that the
appellant pointed the fingers at deceased how the lodging of the
complaint, apprehending custodial death of deceased who was
appellant’s clerk for about 13 years, which caused the registration
of custodial death case under FIR No.371/1993 can be taken as
a ground for framing charge against the appellant for the offences
punishable u/s. 302, IPC, 120-B with the aid of s.34, IPC – These
aspects were not considered by the High Court – Consequently, the
order and judgment dated 21.04.2023 passed by the High Court in
an application filed u/s. 482, Cr.PC, and the order dated 19.04.2007
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI) are
set aside.[Paras 23, 24, 28, 30, 35]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Jurisdiction of
the Court:
Held: It will be within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned to
sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the accused concerned
has been made out – This Court is of the considered view that a
caution has to be sounded for the reason that the chances of going
beyond the permissible jurisdiction u/s. 227, Cr.PC, and entering
into the scope of power u/s. 232, Cr.PC, cannot be ruled out as
such instances are aplenty. [Para 19]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Framing of charge –
Duty and obligation of the Court:
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1157
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Held: The question of framing the charge would arise only in a
case where the court upon such exercise satisfies itself about
the prima facie case revealing from “the record of the case
and the documents submitted therewith” against the accused
concerned – In short, it can be said in that view of the matter that
the intention embedded is to ensure that an accused will be made
to stand the ordeal of trial only if ‘the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith’ discloses ground for proceeding
against him – When that be so, in a case where an application is
filed for discharge u/s. 227, Cr.PC, it is an irrecusable duty and
obligation of the Court to apply its mind and answer to it regarding
the existence of or otherwise, of ground for proceeding against
the accused, by confining such consideration based only on the
record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and
after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution
in that behalf – To wit, such conclusion on existence or otherwise
of ground to proceed against the accused concerned should
not be and could not be based on mere suppositions or suspicions
or conjectures, especially not founded upon material available
before the Court. [Para 22]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Application for
discharge – Disclosure of reasons by the Court for rejection
of application:
Held: When an application for discharge is filed under Section 227,
Cr.PC, the Court concerned is bound to disclose the reason(s),
though, not in detail, for finding sufficient ground for rejecting the
application or in other words, for finding prima facie case, as it will
enable the superior Court to examine the challenge against the
order of rejection. [Para 22]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Meaning of
the expression “the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith” – discussed.
Case Law Cited
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 460 :
(2005) 1 SCC 568; P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Anr. [2010]
2 SCR 78 : (2010) 2 SCC 398; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal [1979] 2 SCR 229 : (1979) 3 SCC 4 – relied on.
1158 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Yogesh alias Sachin Jagadish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra
[2008] 6 SCR 1116 : AIR 2008 SC 2991; State of Tamil Nadu v.
N Suresh Rajan & Ors. [2014] 1 SCR 135 : (2014) 11 SCC 709;
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr.
[1989] 1 SCR 560 : (1989) 1 SCC 715; Om Parkash Sharma v.
CBI [2000] 3 SCR 188 : (2000) 5 SCC 679; R. Venkatakrishnan
v. CBI [2009] 12 SCR 762 : (2009) 11 SCC 737; Ajay Aggarwal
v. Union of India & Ors. [1993] 3 SCR 543 : (1993) 3 SCC 609 –
referred to.
BK Sharma v. State of UP (1987) SCC OnLine ALL 314; Kaushalya
Devi v. State of MP (2003) SCC OnLine MP 672 – approved.
K.S. Narayanan & Ors. v. G Gopinathan 1982 CriLJ 1611
(Madras) – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The record
of the case and the documents submitted therewith; Discharge;
Application for discharge; Suppositions and suspicions; Materials
produced by the prosecution; Duty and obligation of the Court;
Disclosure of reasons by the Court for rejection of discharge
application.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2395
of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2023 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No. 21739 of 2007
Appearances for Parties
Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Ms. Prachi Pratap, Dr.
Prashant Pratap, Akshay Singh, Gautam Mishra, Ms. Kinjal Aggarwal,
Ms. Aakriti Priya, Ms. Muskan Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G., Sarvesh Singh Baghel,
Abhinav S. Agarwal, Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Advs. for the
Respondent.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1159
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
C.T. Ravikumar, J.
1. The dismissal of application under Section 482, No.21739 of 2007,
essentially, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.PC’) against dismissal of an application
for discharge by the appellant herein under Section 227 Cr.PC,
as per order dated 21.04.2023 by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant moved
the said application for discharge in Crime No.371/1993, the charge
in essence there is about custodial death of one Ram Kishore who
happened to be cashier/accountant of the appellant, which in fact
was registered based on the complaint of the appellant.
2. Heard, learned senior counsel Siddharth Dave appearing for the
appellant and Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Facts leading to the case:
3. Before narrating the facts, we should bear in mind that exercise
of power under Section 227, Cr.PC, is legally permissible only by
considering ‘the record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith’. Therefore, necessarily, the question is what is the meaning
of the expression ‘the record of the case and documents submitted
therewith’? According to us, it refers only to the materials produced
by the prosecution and not by the accused. A three-Judge Bench of
this Court considered this question in State of Orissa v. Debendra
Nath Padhi.1 It was held that the said expression as postulated in
Section 227, Cr.PC, relate to the case and the documents referred
to under Section 209, Cr.PC. Section 209, Cr.PC, reads thus:-
“209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when
offence is triable exclusively by it. — When in a case
instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused
appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears
to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by
the Court of Session, he shall —
1 [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 460 : (2005) 1 SCC 568
1160 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(a) commit, after complying with the provisions of section
207 or section 208, as the case may be, the case to the
Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this
Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until
such commitment has been made;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail,
remand the accused to custody during, and until the
conclusion of, the trial;
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the
documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced
in evidence;
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the
case to the Court of Session.”
In view of Section 209, Cr.PC, as extracted above, to know what
exactly are the documents falling within the said expression Sections
207 and 208, Cr.PC, are also to be looked into.
4. We referred to the provisions under Section 227 and the decision
in Debendra Nath Padhi’s case (supra) only to conclude that even
for the purpose of referring to the facts leading to the case, as also
for consideration of the contentions for the purpose of Section 227,
Cr.PC, we cannot refer to the grounds carrying or referring to the
case of the appellant-accused, in view of the aforesaid provisions
of law and position of law, requiring to confine such consideration
only with reference to the materials produced by the prosecution.
5. Now, we will refer to the facts leading to the case, as per the
prosecution and as per the materials falling within the purview of
Section 227, Cr.PC.
6. The appellant, who is the owner of Goodwill Enterprises dealing with
wood, registered Case Crime No.351 of 1993 under Section 392 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) at Police Station
Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, alleging that his cashier/accountant-
Ram Kishore and one Pappu Yadav went for collecting his business
proceeds from shops at Meerut and Modi Nagar in the morning of
15.07.1993. On their way back from Meerut, after collecting such
business proceeds, they stopped the car in front of Ginni Devi School
in Modi Nagar and Ram Kishore went to Poonam Sales for collection
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1161
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
and Pappu Yadav remain seated in the car with the bag containing
the collection and some documents. Soon, two persons came and
snatched the said bag from Pappu Yadav after putting him at gun
point and escaped on a motorcycle. The appellant was given such
information over phone. Later, on that day itself the appellant got
registered the above-mentioned FIR about robbery and asked for
investigation and appropriate legal action, in the incident.
7. The materials on record and the counter affidavit filed in this appeal on
behalf of the respondent based on such materials would reveal that the
initial investigation in Case Crime No.351/1993 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the robbery case’) found it to be false. However, the Supervising
Officer concerned viz., the Commanding Officer, Modi Nagar stopped
the closure report and entrusted the case for investigation to another
officer. Thereafter, on 17.07.1993, the appellant called Ram Kishore
from his house through one of his employees viz., Jagannath and took
him to the Modi Nagar Police Station for inquiry. It is only appropriate
to extract from the chargesheet dated 21.02.2000 filed by CBCID,
Lucknow, U.P., in FIR No. 371/1993 of Police Station, Modi Nagar,
registered in connection with the custodial death of Ram Kishore
unfolding further the case of the prosecution instead of narrating it.
It in so far as relevant reads thus:-
“…Ram Kishore was illegally kept in the police station
by Inspector of Police R.D. Pathak and Sub-Inspector of
Police Jawahar Lal from 17.07.1993 to 23.07.1993 night
and by subjecting him to the torture he was kept being
interrogated about the said incident. In the night of date
23.07.1993 on Ram Kishore felling ill he was taken to
M.M.G. Hospital Ghaziabad by Inspector R.D. Pathak
through staffs and Jeep where on 3:20 in the morning
he died. He was admitted by the police in the Hospital in
the name of unknown. After death of the young man Ram
Kishore on date 24.07.1993, a complaint regarding death
was submitted by the complainant to the Circle Inspector
Modi Nagar raising suspicion about death of Shri Ram
Kishore having been caused by the Inspector of Modi
Nagar by beating him on which Crime Case No.371/1993
was registered illegible. As per the post mortem report
dated 24.07.1993 ante mortem redics cut incision were
1162 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
found on his both the buttocks and because of the cause
of death not having been ascertained his internal organs
were preserved which was examined on date 03.01.1995
poison etc. were ruled out. …”
8. In the chargesheet dated 21.02.2000 filed in Crime No.371/1993,
the aforesaid Rameshwar Dayal Pathak, the then Inspector of Police
and Jawahar Lal, the then Sub-Inspector of Police and the appellant
were made accused Nos. 1 to 3 respectively, for commission of
offences under Sections 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34, IPC.
It is seeking discharge under Section 227, Cr.PC, in the aforesaid
case viz., Crime No.371/1993 that appellant herein approached the
court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Ghaziabad by
filing application dated 04.04.2007 contending absolute absence any
ground to proceed against him. The said application for discharge
under Section 227, Cr.PC, was rejected by the court of Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI), as per order dated 19.04.2007.
The impugned order dated 21.04.2023 was passed by the High Court
in the petition filed under Section 482, Cr.PC, against the said order
dated 19.04.2007.
Rival contentions:
9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would
contend that the very charge filed by the CBCID dated 21.02.2000
in the custodial death case viz., FIR No. 371/2023 would reveal
that the appellant herein is the informant. It is also submitted that
the final report filed in the ‘custodial death case’, dated 21.02.2000
would further show that he was witness No.1 and also as accused
No.3. The Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that there
is absolute absence of any material to arraign the appellant herein
as an accused with the aid of either Section 120B, IPC or Section
34, IPC. The next submission was that even if the statements of
the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC, including the
witnesses related to the deceased Ram Kishore like Smt. Santosh,
Shri Promod Kumar and Shri Bhim Singh, who are respectively
the widow, son and brother of deceased Ram Kishore are taken
as correct, they would not reveal anything to base an allegation
of criminal conspiracy or sharing of common intention against the
appellant. It is the further submission that virtually, the appellant’s
application for discharge was dismissed by the Court of the
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1163
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Additional Sessions Judge taking two circumstances as suspicious
circumstances (i) that it was he who had taken accused Ram
Kishore to Police Station in connection with the investigation in
Crime No.351/1993 (the robbery case) (ii) that immediately on the
death of Ram Kishore from the hospital he filed the complaint which
culminated in the registration of FIR No.371/1993 in connection with
the murder of Ram Kishore, alleging that Inspector, Modi Nagar
and 3-4 other police personnel had taken Ram Kishore with them
for interrogation and apprehending the cause of his death due to
torture by police personnel. It is submitted neither the statements
of witnesses or the chargesheet carry any such accusation or
insinuation and that suspicion was made only by the court in the
order dated 19.04.2007 while rejecting the appellant’s application
for discharge. In short, the contention is that neither the trial court
nor the High Court considered the application for discharge in the
manner required under law.
10. Per Contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the State would submit the materials on record produced along with
the chargesheet would prima facie show that it was the appellant who
lodged the complaint resulting in registration of Crime No.351/1993,
and that it was in connection with the investigation of the said crime
that the appellant himself produced the deceased Ram Kishore before
the Police Station after calling him from his house through another
employee and as such his very action in filing another complaint
leading to the registration of Crime No.371/1993 against the first
accused, the then SHO, Police Station, Modi Nagar, for the death
of Ram Kishore immediately on coming to know about the death
of Ram Kishore, is sufficient to create a strong suspicion against
the appellant. When such a strong suspicion is there, in the light
of the statements made by the other witnesses under Section 161,
Cr.PC, the concurrent finding resulted in dismissal of application for
discharge filed by the appellant invites no interference, according to
the learned Additional Advocate General.
11. For appreciating the aforesaid contentions, we are of the considered
view that it is only appropriate to refer to the position of law with
respect to the scope of exercise of power under Section 227, Cr.PC,
as also the ingredients to attract Section 120B, IPC. Section 227,
Cr.PC, reads thus:
1164 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“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 in 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.”
12. We have already considered the meaning of the expression “the
record of the case and the documents submitted therewith” relying
on the decision in Debendra Nath Padhi’s case (supra) only
to re-assure as to what are the materials falling under the said
expression and thus, available for consideration of an application
filed for discharge under Section 227, Cr.PC. In the light of the
same, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that
at the stage of consideration of such an application for discharge,
defence case or material, if produced at all by the accused, cannot
be looked at all. Once “the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith” are before the Court they alone can be looked
into for considering the application for discharge and thereafter if it
considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused concerned then he shall be discharged after recording
reasons therefor. In that regard, it is only appropriate to consider the
authorities dealing with the question as to what exactly is the scope
of consideration and what should be the manner of consideration
while exercising such power.
13. The decision in Yogesh alias Sachin Jagadish Joshi v. State of
Maharashtra2 this Court held that the words “not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused” appearing in Section 227, Cr.PC,
postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the
facts of the case revealed from the materials brought on record by
the prosecution in order to determine whether a case for trial has
been made out. In the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. N Suresh
Rajan & Ors.3 this Court held that at a stage of consideration of an
application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with an assumption
that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true, and
2 [2008] 6 SCR 1116 : AIR 2008 SC 2991
3 [2014] 1 SCR 135 : (2014) 11 SCC 709
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1165
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
evaluate the materials to find out whether the facts taken at their
face value disclose the existence of the ingredients constituting the
offence. At this stage, only the probative value of the materials has
to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the
matter to hold a mini-trial.
14. In the decision in BK Sharma v. State of UP,4 the High Court of
judicature at Allahabad held that the standard of test and judgment
which is finally applied before recording a finding of conviction against
an accused is not to be applied at the stage of framing the charge.
It is just a very strong suspicion, based on the material on record,
and would be sufficient to frame a charge.
15. We are in agreement with the said view taken by the High Court.
At the same time, we would add that the strong suspicion in order
to be sufficient to frame a charge should be based on the material
brought on record by the prosecution and should not be based on
supposition, suspicions and conjectures. In other words, in order to
be a basis to frame charge the strong suspicion should be the one
emerging from the materials on record brought by the prosecution.
16. In the decision in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal
Chordia & Anr.,5 this Court held that the word ‘ground’ in Section
227, Cr.PC, did not mean a ground for conviction, but a ground for
putting the accused on trial.
17. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Anr.,6 after extracting Section
227, Cr.PC, this Court in paragraph No.10 and 11 held thus: -
“10.
**** **** **** ****
…….If two views are possible and one of them gives rise
to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,
the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the
accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the
trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words
“not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused”
4 1987 SCC OnLine ALL 314
5 [1989] 1 SCR 560 : (1989) 1 SCC 715
6 [2010] 2 SCR 78 : (2010) 2 SCC 398
1166 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to
frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but
has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case
in order to determine whether a case for trial has been
made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is
not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons
of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence
and probabilities which is really the function of the court,
after the trial starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to
sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In
other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its
fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or
the documents produced before the court which ex facie
disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against
the accused so as to frame a charge against him.”
18. In paragraph 13 in P. Vijayan’s case (supra), this Court took note
of the principles enunciated earlier by this Court in Union of India
v. Prafulla Kumar Samal 7 which reads thus: -
“10….
(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
7 [1979] 2 SCR 229 : (1979) 3 SCC 4
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1167
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
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.”
19. In the light of the decisions referred supra, it is thus obvious that
it will be within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned to sift and
weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether
or not a prima facie case against the accused concerned has been
made out. We are of the considered view that a caution has to
be sounded for the reason that the chances of going beyond the
permissible jurisdiction under Section 227, Cr.PC, and entering
into the scope of power under Section 232, Cr.PC, cannot be ruled
out as such instances are aplenty. In this context, it is relevant to
refer to a decision of this Court in Om Parkash Sharma v. CBI.8
Taking note of the language of Section 227, Cr.PC, is in negative
terminology and that the language in Section 232, Cr.PC, is in the
positive terminology and considering this distinction between the
two, this Court held that it would not be open to the Court while
considering an application under Section 227, Cr.PC, to weigh
the pros and cons of the evidence alleged improbability and then
proceed to discharge the accused holding that the statements
existing in the case therein are unreliable. It is held that doing so
would be practically acting under Section 232, Cr.PC, even though
the said stage has not reached. In short, though it is permissible
to sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused,
8 [2000] 3 SCR 188 : (2000) 5 SCC 679
1168 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
on appreciation of the admissibility and the evidentiary value such
materials brought on record by the prosecution is impermissible as
it would amount to denial of opportunity to the prosecution to prove
them appropriately at the appropriate stage besides amounting to
exercise of the power coupled with obligation under Section 232,
Cr.PC, available only after taking the evidence for the prosecution
and examining the accused.
20. Even after referring to the aforesaid decisions, we think it absolutely
appropriate to refer to a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
in Kaushalya Devi v. State of MP.9 It was held in the said case
that if there is no legal evidence, then framing of charge would be
groundless and compelling the accused to face the trial is contrary to
the procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While
agreeing with the view, we make it clear that the expression ‘legal
evidence’ has to be construed only as evidence disclosing prima
facie case, ‘the record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith’.
21. The stage of Section 227, Cr.PC, is equally crucial and determinative
to both the prosecution and the accused, we will dilate the issue
further. In this context, certain other aspects also require consideration.
It cannot be said that Section 227, Cr.PC, is couched in negative
terminology without a purpose. Charge sheet is a misnomer for the
final report filed under Section 173 (2), Cr.PC, which is not a negative
report and one that carries an accusation against the accused
concerned of having committed the offence (s) mentioned therein.
22. In cases, where it appears that the said offence(s) is one triable
exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall have to
commit the case to the Court of Session concerned following the
prescribed procedures under Cr.PC. In such cases, though it carries
an accusation as aforementioned still legislature thought it appropriate
to provide an inviolable right as a precious safeguard for the accused,
a pre-battle protection under Section 227, Cr.PC. Though, this
provision is couched in negative it obligated the court concerned to
unfailingly consider the record of the case and document submitted
therewith and also to hear the submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in that behalf to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or
9 2003 SCC OnLine MP 672
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1169
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused is available
thereunder. Certainly, if the answer of such consideration is in the
negative, the court is bound to discharge the accused and to record
reasons therefor. The corollary is that the question of framing the
charge would arise only in a case where the court upon such exercise
satisfies itself about the prima facie case revealing from “the record
of the case and the documents submitted therewith” against the
accused concerned. In short, it can be said in that view of the matter
that the intention embedded is to ensure that an accused will be
made to stand the ordeal of trial only if ‘the record of the case and
the documents submitted therewith’ discloses ground for proceeding
against him. When that be so, in a case where an application is
filed for discharge under Section 227, Cr.PC, it is an irrecusable
duty and obligation of the Court to apply its mind and answer to it
regarding the existence of or otherwise, of ground for proceeding
against the accused, by confining such consideration based only on
the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and
after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution
in that behalf. To wit, such conclusion on existence or otherwise
of ground to proceed against the accused concerned should not
be and could not be based on mere suppositions or suspicions or
conjectures, especially not founded upon material available before
the Court. We are not oblivious of the fact that normally, the Court is
to record his reasons only for discharging an accused at the stage
of Section 227, Cr.PC. However, when an application for discharge
is filed under Section 227, Cr.PC, the Court concerned is bound to
disclose the reason(s), though, not in detail, for finding sufficient
ground for rejecting the application or in other words, for finding
prima facie case, as it will enable the superior Court to examine the
challenge against the order of rejection.
23. By applying the laws enunciated and the principles laid, we will
proceed to consider the case on hand. In the final report filed in
FIR No.371 of 1993 viz., in the custodial death case, the afore-
extracted portion from it revealed that the essence of the accusation
is commission of custodial death owing to the torture to which Ram
Kishore was subjected to, from 17.07.1993 to 23.07.1993. It reveals
that going by the same, he was illegally kept in the Police Station
by accused Nos.1 and 2. A scanning of the charge as also the other
materials including the statements of the witnesses recorded under
1170 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Section 161, Cr.PC, would reveal that there is absolute absence of
any accusation or even an insinuation that the appellant had played
any role in torturing Ram Kishore. Therefore, the question is how he
is arraigned as third accused in the aforesaid crime. In that regard,
it is apposite to refer again to the final report dated 21.02.2000 filed
in Crime No.371/1993. The relevant portion in the final report in this
regard, reads thus: -
“…In this manner from this investigation, it was found that
deceased Ram Kishore was kept in the Police Station from
dated 17.07.1993 to 23.07.1993 in the Police Station under
the criminal Conspiracy of the accused persons mentioned
in the column no.3 during which he was tortured and
interrogated regarding the incident of loot and knowingly
with the intention of saving their skins no entry of the same
was made in the records of the Police Station nor was the
same mentioned by the complainant in its report. Charge
under Section 341/217/218/201/330/34 /120B Indian Penal
Code, 1860 was found to have been made out against all
the accused persons. …”
24. From the above extracted portion, it is evident that the implication of
the appellant in the crime is with the aid of Section 120B and Section
34, IPC. Apart from using the expression “criminal conspiracy” there
is absolute absence of anything whatsoever in the said final report
as also in the statement of any of the witnesses, suggesting that the
appellant herein conspired with the other accused or what exactly
is the criminal conspiracy.
25. This Court in the decision in R. Venkatakrishnan v. CBI,10 held that
criminal conspiracy, in terms of Section 120B, IPC, is an independent
offence and its ingredients are:
(i) an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either –
(a) an illegal act;
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is also done by
illegal means.
10 (2009) 11 SCC 737
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1171
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
26. An important facet of law of conspiracy is that apart from it being a
distinct offence, all conspirators are liable for the acts of each other
of the crime or crimes which have been committed as a result of
conspiracy. A careful scanning of the provisions under Sections 120A
and 120B, IPC, would reveal that the sine qua non for an offence
of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an offence. It
consists of agreement between two or more persons to commit the
criminal offence, irrespective of the further consideration whether or
not the offence is actually committed as the very fact of conspiracy
constitutes the offence (See the decision in K.S. Narayanan & Ors.
v. G Gopinathan11).
27. There can be no doubt that conspiracy is hatched in privacy and
not in secrecy, and such it would rarely be possible to establish
conspiracy by direct evidence. A few bits here and a few bits there,
on which the prosecution may rely, are not sufficient to connect an
accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy.
To constitute even an accusation of criminal conspiracy, first and
foremost, there must at least be an accusation of meeting of minds
of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act, which is
not illegal in itself, by illegal means.
28. In Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India & Ors.,12 this Court characterized
the offence of criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or
more persons to do an illegal act or a legal through illegal means.
Furthermore, it was held that commission of the offence would be
complete as soon as, there is consensus ad idem and it would be
immaterial whether or not the offence is actually committed. It is also
held therein that necessarily there must be agreement between the
conspirators on the design or object of the conspiracy. As held in
R. Venkatakrishnan case (supra), the quintessential ingredient to
attract the offence of criminal conspiracy is agreement between two
or more persons. Therefore, the question is whether it spelt in the
final report dated 21.02.2000 or in any of the records of the case and
documents submitted therewith, so as to find a prima facie case of
commission of criminal conspiracy against the appellant. True that
an agreement referred to in Section 120A, IPC may be expressed or
11 1982 CriLJ 1611 (Madras)
12 [1993] 3 SCR 543 : (1993) 3 SCC 609
1172 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
implied or in part express and in part implied. However, no record of
the case or documents submitted therewith carry such an allegation/
accusation against the appellant.
29. What is the common plan or the common intention? This aspect is also
conspicuously absent in the materials produced by the prosecution.
In regard to all such aspects, referred above, none of the witnesses
has spoken while giving statements under Section 161, Cr.PC. In
this context it is also to be noted that according to the Trial Court, a
very strong suspicion lingers on account of twin circumstances. In
the order dated 19.04.2007, the Trial Court in this regard observed
and held thus: -
“ The learned Assistant District Government Counsel
(Criminal) has argued that if the accused persons says that
he had fell ill in the night and he was complaining of having
pain in the chest then why his family members were not
informed. The said condition is also very much suspicious.
Besides these, the accused was handed over to the police
by the accused Ram Prakash Chaddha himself and in
the next day morning the report was lodged by him only.
Keeping in view the abovementioned entire facts and
circumstances sufficient evidences are available on the
record for the framing of charge against the accused
persons Rameshwar Dayal Pathak and Jawahar Lal and
Ram Prakash Chaddha.”
30. In the light of the records of the case and the documents submitted
therewith, it can only be found that the said finding of the Trial
Court on the ground to proceed against the appellant is based on
suppositions and suspicions, having no foundational support from
the materials produced by the prosecution. With respect to the first
part of the above-extracted recital from the order of the Trial Court,
it is to be noted that it is nobody’s case that the appellant was in
the Police Station or informed of the sufferance from chest pain. As
relates the second suspicion, it is to be noted that the very Trial Court
itself, in the very order dated 19.04.2007 itself, stated that in Crime
No.351/1993 under Section 392, IPC the deceased Ram Kishore was
only a witness and that the amount in cash and the draft involved
was that of the appellant. It is also the case of the prosecution
that the said case was registered, at the instance of the appellant
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1173
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
against unknown persons. Hence, when the appellant who lost the
money went to Police Station along with the witness thereof, how
can it be presumed by the Court as a strong case for suspicion for
commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy, especially taking
note of the very case of the prosecution that causative incident for
the case occurred when Ram Kishore was returning after collecting
the business proceeds of the appellant and that the appellant was
informed of it over telephone by Ram Kishore. When there is no case
for the prosecution that the appellant pointed the fingers at Ram
Kishore how the lodging of the complaint, apprehending custodial
death of Ram Kishore who was appellant’s clerk for about 13 years,
which caused the registration of custodial death case under FIR
No.371/1993 can be taken as a ground for framing charge against
the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302, IPC,
120-B with the aid of Section 34, IPC.
31. These aspects were not at all considered by the High Court. To
say the least, there was no consideration of the matter by the High
Court in the manner required under law, in the given facts and
circumstances of the case.
32. We are at a loss to understand, how in the absence of ground for
a prima facie case revealed from the materials produced by the
prosecution a person who lost his money and lodged a complaint
based on the information furnished by his employee can be implicated
in an offence, that too a grave allegation of commission of an offence
of custodial death amounting to murder, merely because he caused
the presence of the person concerned before the Police Station
unless the ingredients to attract criminal conspiracy to commit any
specific offence in relation to Ram Kishore is available. If the case
of the prosecution and the materials produced along with the charge
are taken as true, they would only suggest that Ram Kishore was
under the control of the police in the Police Station. In fact, that
exactly is the prosecution case revealed from the final report dated
21.02.2000 filed in Crime No.371/1993.
33. The aforesaid being the position revealed from the materials produced
by the prosecution, the mere fact that rejection of the application
of the appellant for discharge is concurrent cannot be a reason for
confirming the impugned order of the High Court confirming the order
of the Trial Court. Since the diallage on the matter constrain us to
1174 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
come to the concrete conclusion of absence of ground for proceeding
against the appellant based on final report dated 21.02.2000 in Crime
No.371/1993 of CBCID, U.P. Lucknow, this appeal must succeed.
34. We clarify that the observations made in this judgment are made
qua the appellant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal and we
make it clear that we have not made any observation touching the
merits of the case against the other accused in Crime No.371/1993
of CBCID, U.P. Lucknow.
35. For the reasons given as above, this appeal is allowed. Consequently,
the order and judgment dated 21.04.2023 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in application No.21739 of 2007 filed under
Section 482, Cr.PC, and the order dated 19.04.2007 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI) are set aside. As a
necessary sequel, the application filed by the appellant under Section
227, Cr.PC, dated 04.04.2007 for discharge in Crime No.351/1993
filed in Sessions Trial No.1532/2005 before Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (CBI), Prevention of Corruption Act U.P., East
Ghaziabad is allowed and the appellant stands discharged.
36. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973"Sign in to search