Holding

At the charge‑framing stage under Sections 227 and 228, the court must only ascertain the existence of a prima facie case from the material on record and cannot require independent corroboration or discharge the accused on the basis of character or victim delay.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed the Bombay High Court’s order quashing the charge of rape against spiritual teacher Priya Sharan Maharaj and others. The High Court had discharged the accused on the basis that the accused was a saintly man and that the victims’ delayed complaints and lack of external injuries rendered their statements unreliable. The Supreme Court held that at the stage of Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC the trial court must only determine whether a prima facie case exists from the material on record, not seek independent corroboration or assess the likelihood of conviction. Consequently, the High Court’s reliance on the accused’s character and the victims’ conduct was erroneous. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order and directed the Sessions Court to proceed with trial, re‑examining the charge for possible amendment under Section 219 of the CrPC.

Issues considered

The appropriate standard of evidence and scope of judicial discretion at the charge‑framing stage under Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC
Whether the High Court could discharge the accused on the basis of the accused’s saintly reputation and alleged victim delay
Whether lack of external injuries or independent corroboration renders a victim’s testimony false at the charge‑framing stage
Whether the charge as framed violated Section 219 of the CrPC by combining multiple offences

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 219, s. 227, s. 228
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 114, s. 34, s. 363, s. 366, s. 376

Subjects

criminal procedurecharge framingprima facie casedischarge of accusedrapevictim testimonycorroborationSection 219 CrPCspiritual leader abuse

Judgment

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA A
v.
PRTYA SHARAN MAHARAJ AND ORS.

MARCH 11, 1997

(G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] B

Criminal Law :

Criminal Procedu~i Code, 1973 : Sections 227, 228 and 219.

Accused-Discharge of or framing of charges against-Tests to deter- c
mine-Held: Court had to sift evidence on record only for the limited purpose
~
of finding out whether a prim a f acie case was made out against the ac-
cused-At that stage Court was not required to sift the evidence.for arriving
at the conclusion that it would not lead to conviction-In the circumstances
of the case, the High Court erred in seeking independent co"oboration to the D
version of the complainants in discharging the accused-Case remitted to trial
court to proceed further in accordance with law-Trial Court was further
directed to consider afresh whether the charge was required to be altered or
amended so as to make it consistent with S. 219.

Penal Code, 1860 : Section 376. E
Accused-Complaint against-For committing rape on 3 girls at dif-
f erent times-High Court discharged accused on grounds that he was a saintly
old n_ian who had thousands/millions of disciples all over India and that there
was delay on the part of the rape victims in disclosing those illegal acts to
their parents and polic~eld : High Court e"ed in discharging the accused F
merely on such grounds-Rape victims, while making co,mplaint to the police,
were not required to give detailed explanations.
:,
Section 37fr-Extema/ injwies-Absence of-4.Jn the person of the
prosecutrix-Held: Version of the prosecutrix could not be described as false
G
on such a ground.

The ·accused, a spiritual teacher, was charged under Section 376. of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for committing rape on 3 girls at different
times. The application for discharge of the accused was dismissed. ·But the
High Court .discharged the accused on the grounds that the accused was H
933
/
~ 934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 2 S.C.R.
I

A a saintly old man, who had renounced the world, who was engrossed in·
spiritual activities and ·who had thousands millions or disciples all over
India and, therefore, was not likely to indulge in the illegal acts alleged
against him. The High Court- further held that a saintly old man would
not commit sexual intercourse with the pracharak of his cult in the presence
B or his disciples; that the conduct or the victims and the delay in disclosing
the illegal acts to their parents and the police showed that the girls had
leveled raise alle~ations against the accused; that there was no independent
corroboration or the story or the victims and that the absence or external
injuries on the person of the prosecutrix showed that her version was false.
Hence this appeal.
c
On behalf or the appellant-State it was contended that the High
Court far exceeded the limits or consideration at the stage or Section 227
or the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; and that the High Court committed
error in sirting and weighing the material placed before the Court by
· applying the standard or test and proof which was to be applied finally for
D deciding'whether the accused was guilty or not. .

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: l.1. At the stag~ of Sections 227 and 228 or the Criminal
E Procedure Code, 1973 the Court is required to evaluate the material and
documents on record with a view to finding out ir the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the in•
gredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited
purpose, sift the evidence, as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage
to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even ifit is opposed ----
F to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the
stage or framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with
a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed the offence or that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it
G is not likely to lead to a com:iction. (939-D-G]
1.2. What the Court has to consider at the stage of framing of the
charge is whether the version of the person complaining together with
his/her explanation is prim a f acie believable or not. It was, therefore, not
proper for the High Court to seek independent corroboration at that stage
H and to 9uash the charge and discharge the accused in absence thereof. The
/

. STATEv. PRIYASHARANMAHARAT 935

High Court was wholly wrong in discarding the material placed before the A
Court as false and discharging the accused on that ground. [943-C-F]

- Niranjan Singh Punjabi v.Jitendra Bijjaya, [1990] 4 SCC 76, relied on.

State of Punjab v.JagirSingh, AIR (1977) SC 2407, held inapplicable.
B
.Union of India v. Prajulla Kumar Sama/ & Anr., [1979] 2 SCR 229,
referred to.

-- 1.3. The Sessions Court is directed to proceed further with the trial
in accordance with law and to consider afresh whether the charge is
required to be altered or amended so as to make it consistent with Section C
219 of the Code.

2.1. In the present case, the High Court was much influenced by the
submission made on behalf of the defence that the accused is a saintly old
man, who has renounced the world, who is engrossed in spiritual activity D
and who has thousands/millions of disciples all over India and, therefore,
he was not likely to indulge in the illegal acts alleged against him. It failed
to appreciate that it is not unusual to come across cases where the
so-called spiritual heads exploit young girls and women who become their
disciples and come under their spell. Moreover, the reasoning of the High
Court that it also does not stand to reason that a saintly man who has E
thousands/millions of disciples all over India would commit sexual inter-
course with the pracharak of his cult in the presence of his disciples stands
vitiated because of the vice of misreading the statements. The three rape
victims have nowhere stated in their statements that the accused had
sexual intercourse with them in the presence of other disciples. The High F
Court gave too much importance to the conduct of the three victims and
the delay in disclosing those illegal acts to their parents and the police.
What the High Court has failed to appreciate is how a victim of such an

-
offence will behave would depend upon the circumstances in which she is
placed. It often happens that such victims do not complain against such
illegal acts immediately because of factors like fear or shame or uncertain- G
ties about the reactions of their parents or husbands in case of married
girls or women and the adverse consequences which, they apprehend,
would follow because of disclosure of such acts. What the three girls had
stated in their statements 'Wi!S not inherently improbable or unnatural.
They have disclosed the reasons why they could not immediately complain H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R. "t
A about those illegal acts for such a long time. What the High Court has
failed to appreciate is that while making a complaint to the police or giving
their statements they were uot required to give detailed explanations.

2.2. It was also improper on the part of !he High Court to describe
...
the version of the prosecutrix as false because no external injuries were
B noticed on her person while she was examined by a doctor.

Modi: "Medical Jurispmdence and Toxicology'~ referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
C 263 of 1997. --
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.2.95 of the Bombay High
Court in Cr!. R.A. No. 130 of 1994.

M.S. Nargolkar and S.M. Jadhav for the Appellant.
D
Rajendra Singh, Ranjit Kumar and Ms. Binu Tamta for the Respon-
dents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E NANAVATI, J.: Leave granted.

Heard the learned counsel.
. .
On 11.5.91, one Purushottam Wasudeo Deshpande lodged a com-
plaint at the Dhantoli Police Station, Nagpur that his two young daughters,
F Hema and Mccra were kidnapped by Priya Sharan Maharaj (Respondent
No. 1) with the help of Suhasini (Respondent No. 6) and Sharwari Devi
(Respondent No. 7). On the basis of this report an offence was registered
under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Investigation of that offence disclosed that
Kripalu Maharaj (Respondent No. 2), who claims to be a spiritual teacher
and has· his Ashrams at Vrindavan and Mangadh, is a highly immoral
G person and in order to satisfy his lust he, with the help of his disciples,
including Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 7, used to entice young girls and
have sexual intercourse with them against their wish. Respondent No. 2,
-
--=

through ,his disciples, used to impress upon the young girls that he is the
incarnation of Lord Krishna, that they should treat him as their husband
H and that what he was doing with them was in the nature of 'Prasad' of (~od
STATE v. PRIYA SHARAN MAHARAJ [NANAVATI, J.] 937

and by such acts they were really blessed. The investigation further dis- A
. closed that Meera, . Hema and one Sulakshana were thus subjected to
sexual intercourse by Kripalu Maharaj. Accordingly, the offence which was
registered against them earlier under Section 363 and 366 IPC was altered
to an offence under Section 376 IPC and all the seven respondents were
shown as accused.
.B
On being chargesheeted, they were put up for trial before the learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur who had frained the following
charge:

"l. That, you above named accused No. 2, prior to i987 at the C
house of one Nilu Chaurasia, in front of Vijay Talkies, Nagpur,
committed rape on one Kum. Meera D/o Purushottam Deshpande,
aged 26 years, r/o Nagpur, against her will and without her consent,
. posing yourself, you are a devine spirit or Lord .Krishna. So alsci,
again in the month of February, 1991, you accused No. 2, posing
a
yourself that you are divine spirit of Lord Krishna,. committed D
rape on said Kum. Mccra Deshpande, at the house of one Shrivas-
tava, Near Pn;vinamee School, Nagpur. .

Again on 16th day of January, 1990, at about 5.00 p.m. at the house
of one Khatri, Kadhi Chowk, Nagpur, committed rape on one
E
Sulakshana D/o Shyamsundar Pehankar, a girl aged about 14 years,
. r/o Juni Shukrawari, Nagpur. Again .on 14.4.1990, ai about 5 p.m.
at the house of one R.P. Shrivastava, Nagpur you committed rape

- on said Kum. Sulakshana, posing yourself that you are a Divine
Spirit of Lord Krishna.
F
So also, in the month - of Sept. 1986, at the house of oi1e
Chaurasia, Near Vijay Talkies, Nagpur, you accused-No. 2, posing

-- yourself, you are a Divine spirit of Lord Krishna, committed rape
on one Kum. Hema @ Brijgauri D/o Purushottam Deshpande,
aged about 19 yrs., against her will and without her consent, an_d G
thereby you above named accused No. 2, committed an offence
punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code,_ within my
cognizance.

2. Secondly, that above named accused No. 2, on the aforesaid day,
date, time and place, committed the offence of rape on the said H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R. ~ ~·
A girls, and that you above named accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7,
in furtherance of your common intention, abetted the said accused .
No. 2, in the commission of the said offence of rape, which was
committed in consequence of your abetmcnt. So also, you about
named accused Nos. 1, 3 to 7 were personally present at the time
of commission of said offence, and that you all thereby committed
B
offences punishable under Section 109, 114/R/W Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code, within my cognizance."

Aggrieved by framing of the charge the respondents had preferred a
revision application. but the High Court declined to imerfere as it was open
C to the respondents to approach the Sessions Court itself for granting the
reliefs prayed for. The respondents, therefore, filed three applications in
the Sessions Court. Exhibit 36 was for modification of the charge and
Exhibits 37 and 41 were for discharging them. At the time of hearing of
these applications, Exhibit 36 was not pressed. The learned Additional
Judge rejected both the applications for discharge.
D
Against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
the respondents preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 130 of 1994
before the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Bombay. The High Court,
by an unduly long order running into 89 pages, allowed the Revision
E Application, quashed the charge framed against the respondents and dis-
charged them. The High Court was of the view that as five acts of rape
were committed during the period from September, 1986 to February, 1991
on three different girls, the charge as framed was in contravention of the

F
provisions of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also held
that the three girls had told lies and developed a false story against the
respondents and that "no prudent man can dare to accept or believe" it.
-
The State. has, therefore, filed this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court
far exceeded the limits of consideration at Section 227 stage and that has
G !Cd to failure of justice. It committed an error of sifting and weighing the
material placed before the Court by applying the standard of test and proof
which is to be applied finally for deciding whether the accused is guilty or
not. What was required to be considered at that stage was whether the
material placed before the Court disclosed a strong suspicion against the
accused. On the other hand, relying upon the judgments of this Court in
H Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Sama/ & Anr., [1979] 2 SCR 229 and
STATEv. PRIYASHARANMAHARAJ [NANAVATI,J.) 939

Niranja11 Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Ors., AIR A
(1990) SC 1962, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
while considering an application for discharge, if there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, the Court has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prim a f acie case against the accused is made out. The
material placed before the Court must disclose grave suspicion against the B
accused. When two views arc equally possible and if the Court finds that
the material produced before it while giving rise to some suspicion does
not give rise to grave suspicion against the accused, it will be fully within
its £ight to discharge the accused. He also submitted that at Section 227
stage the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the C
prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of I.he evidence and the documents produced before the Court,
1 any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This is what the
learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to do and the High Court has
done. He bas thus supported the judgment passed by the High Court.
D
The law on the subject is now well-settled, as pointed out in Niranjan .
Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bijjaya, (1990] 4 SCC 76, that at Sections 227 and
228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on
record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at
their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the E
alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence
as it cannot be expected even at that initial .stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense
or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing
of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find
out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the F
offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him
and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to
lead to a conviction.

Whal we find from the judgment of the High Court is that the G
learned Judge, in order to ascertain the correct legal position, referred to
various decisions and quoted external from them but did not apply the law
correctly. The judgfuent also contains some quotations which have no
relevance. After referring to the case law, the learned Judge has observed
as under:- H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 2 S.C.R.

A ''Considering the facts and circumstances as obtained in the
instant case, I am reminded of the learned observation of their
Lordships while discussing or reflecting on the criminal cases."

and thereafter,quoted the following passage from the decision of this Court
in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh and Karam Singh, AIR (1977)
B Supreme Court 2407 :

"A Criminal trial is not .like a fairy tale wherein one is free to '
give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with
the question as to whether the accused arrainged at the trial is
· guilty of the crime. with which he is charged. Crime is an event in
c real life and is the product of interplay of different human emo-
tions: In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused
charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge
the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth'
and the animus of v,~tnesses. Every case in the final analysis would
-
D have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every
reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should
not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy
on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures."

That was not a case dealing with the scope and nature of enquiry at the
E stage·of framing of charge. Those observations were obviously made in the
context of appreciation of evidence and standard of proof required for
convicting the accused. This clearly indicates that the learned Judge failed
to apply the .correct test.

F The followin~ observations again lead us to that conclusion :

"Giving conscious thought to the rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties, it is abundantly clear that except
the statements of prosecutrix, there is no evidence directly or
indirectly to corroborate their testimonies. According to Kr. Sulak-
G shana she was molested initially on 16.1.1990 and subsequently on
14.4.1990 however there is no disclosure to anyone including her
parents. Considering her age at the relevant time, no injuries were
found as indicated by Modi. Similarly though Ku. Meera alleged
that she was molested prior to 1987 and in February, 1991, instead
H of disclosing the nefarious activities of Maharaj continued to stay
STATEv. PRIYASHARANMAHARAT [NANAVATI,J.] 941

in the company of the applicant No. 2 Kripaluji Maharaj and his A
. disciples. She not only continued her stay with them but moved
from place to place to preach the tenents of the cult of Kripaluji
Maharaj. Similarly, though it is alleged by Ku. Hema and she was
molested in the month of September, 1986, she too continued to
remain with Maharaj. Even it is not. the case of the prosecution B
that these two sisters disclosed about the indence activities of
Kripaluji Maharaj amongst themselves. Meera and Hema both are
graduates and ku. Sulakshna was adolesent. It cannot be expected
from such educated girls to continue to accompany the person who
according to them, proved to be demon and to continue in his cult
propogating his teachings; The conduct of all three girls not being
C'
in consonance with normal dispositions of prudent human beings,
corroboration thus, becomes a necessity or eminant. Taking broad
view of the matter, particularly various infirmities and im-
probabilities, no man of prudence will give any importance to the
story unfolded. It is, thus, clear that except the bare words of these D
three girls, there is no other evidence to corroborate their story.
Anything said by victim at or about the time of occurrence, to their
parents/and/or others, would form part of res-gestae. Such conduct
can be a corroborative piece of evidence of her/their evidence. In
other words, subsequent conduct not only is relevant but important E
and material.

These three girls levelled allegations against the applicant No.

- 2 Kripaluji Maharaj after the lapse of considerable time i.e. after
months and years and, therefore, the probability as depicted by
the defence that. it was at the instance of Nityanand, cannot be F
overruled. It needs mention that no report was lodged by either
of the girls at any time. It is also clear from the record that
Nityanand's statement which was recorded on 11.5.1991 i.e. on' the
day on which the F.LR. was lodged by Purushottam Deshpande.
Subsequently only the statements of all the three prosecutrix came G
to be recorded. Even in the F.I.R. there is no whisper that at any
time, the applicant n.o. 2 had committed rape on any of the
prosecutrix or on any other. disciples. ·

So the evidence does not become reliable merely because it has . H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 2 S.C.R.

A been corroborated by a number of witnesses of the same brand ..

In this case, there is unreasonable, inordinate or extra-ordinary
delay in levelling allegations of physical molestation or rape com-
mitted, by all the three prosecutrix against a saintly old man of 69
years of age who renounced the world and engrossed in spiritual
B world. The explanation as could be revealed from the statements
of the prosecutrix that the disciples of Kripaluji Maharaj all the
while stated that he is an incarnation of God and whatever hap-
pened with them, be taken as a 'Prasad' or blessing of God and
so not to disclose to any one, is difficult to digest as the chestity
c is the jewel of the Indian woman and no woman will consider the
sexual intercourse against her will as 'Prasad' or 'Blessing of God'.

It also does not stand to reason that a· saintly man who has
thou.sands/millions of disciples all over India, direct his own dis-
ciple and in their presence will commit sexual intercourse with the
D pracharak of his cult.

Considering the overall effect of the evidence collected by the
prosecution, there is according to me, no ring of truth. No prudent
man can dare to accept or believe the infirm and improbable
E evidence of the prosecutrix.

All these facts go to show that the girls evidently told lies and
developed false story against the applicant no. 2 and his disciples."

The above quoted paragraphs from the judgment clearly disclose that
F the High Court was much influenced by the submission made on behalf of
the defence that Kripalu Maharaj is a saintly old man, who has renounced
the world, who is engrossed in spiritual activity and who has thousands/mil-
lions of disciples all over India and, therefore, he was not likely to indulge
in the illegal acts alleged against him. It failed to appreciate that it is not
G. unusual to come across cases where the so-called spiritual heads exploit
young girls and women who become their disciples and come under their
spell. Moreover, the reasoning of the High Court that it also does not stand
to reason that a saintly man who has thousands/millions of disciples all over
India would commit sexual intercourse with the pracharak of his cult in
H presence of his disciples stands vitiated because of the vice of misreading
STATEv. PRIYASHARANMAHARAJ [NANAVATI,J.) 943

the statements. The three girls have nowhere stated in their statement that A
R-2 had sexual intercourse with them in presence of other disciples. The
High Court gave too much importance to the conduct of the three victims
and the delay in disclosing those illegal acts to their parents and the police.
What the High Court has failed to appreciate is how a victim of such an '
offence will behave would depend upon the circumstances in which she is B
placed. It often happens that such victims do not complain against such
illegal acts immediately because of factors like fear or shame or uncertain-
ties about the reactions of their parents or husbands in case of married
girls or women and the adverse consequences Which, they apprehend,
would follow because of disclosure of such acts. What the three girls 'had
stated in their statements was not inherently improbable or unnatural. They C
have disclosed the reasons why they could not immediately complain about
those illegal acts for such a long time. What the High Court has failed to
appreciate is that while making a complaint to the police or giving their
statements they were not required to give qetailed explanations. As stated
earlier, what the Court has to consider at the stage of framing of the charge D
is whether the version of the person complaining together with his/her
explanation is prim a f acie believeable or not. It was, therefore, not proper
for the High Court to seek independent corrobOration at that stage and to
quash the charge and discharge the accused in absence thereof. It was also
improper to describe the version of Sulakshana as false because no external E
injuries were noticed on her person while she was examined by a doctor
on the basis of some observations made in Modi's textbook on "Medical

- Jurisprudence and Toxicology''. We do not think it proper to say anything
further as in the view that we are taking, the accused will have to face a
trial and whatever observation we make now may cause some prejudice to F
them at the trial. We would only say that the High Court was wholly wrong
in discarding the material placed before the Court as false and discharging
the accused on that ground.

Before us also the learned counsel for the respondents had made a
grievance that the charge as framed was not in accordance with Section G
219 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application, Exhibit 36, was made
to the Sessions Court for modification of the charge so as to make it
consistent with Section 219. That application was not pressed and the
Court was invited to dispose of the other applications made by them for"' ·
quashing the charge and discharging them. As we are inclined to allow this H

.
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.
j
A appeal the Sessions Court will have to now consider afresh whether the
charge is reqlfired to be altered or amended. ....
We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order
passed by the High Court and direct the Sessions Court to proceed further
with the trial in accordance with law. The trial court shall do so after
B re-examining the material and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and
the lawyer for the accused on the question of amending or altering the
charge so as to make it consistent with the relevant provisions of. the Code
and also after considering
·I
whether it will be possible to try all the offences
at one trial or that they will have to be tried separately.
·..
c v.s.s. Appeal allowed.

-