Supreme Court of India
BIHARI LAL versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. on 15 April 2019
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 47
BIHARI LAL
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 676 of 2019)
APRIL 15, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.307, 323, 325, 336 and 341 r/w s.34 –Accused-respondent no.2-4 were prosecuted for commission ofoffences punishable under ss.307, 323, 325, 336 and 341 r/w s.34IPC – Before the trial court, the case of the accused persons wasthat while framing the charges, no offence under s.307 IPC wasmade out against them and, therefore, no charge should have beenframed against them under s.307 and in support of their case, theyreferred to and placed reliance on the two medical reports whichwere filed by prosecution along with the charge sheet – Trial courtdischarged them from offence under s.307 and proceeded to framethe charges in relation to other offences – Revision petition filed bycomplainant-appellant before the High Court against the dischargeorder was dismissed – Appeal by complainant – Held: Both the Courtsbelow wrongly appreciated the two medical reports, found fault andinconsistencies therein and then came to a conclusion that no primafacie case was made out against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 insofar asthe offence under s.307 IPC was concerned – The stage to appreciatethe evidence with a view to find fault or/and inconsistencies in thetwo medical reports arise only when the prosecution leads evidenceby examining the doctors in support of the medical reports – Thatstage was yet to come in this case – Mere perusal of the medicalreports filed by the prosecution prima facie showed that a caseunder s.307 was made out against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and,therefore, the charge under s.307 ought to have been framed againstthem along with the other charges – Trial court seized of the trial isdirected to frame the charge under s.307 IPC against respondentNos. 2 to 4.
47
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
AAllowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The stage to appreciate the evidence with a viewto find fault or/and inconsistencies in the two medical reportswould arise only when the prosecution leads evidenceby examining the doctors in support of the medical reports.BThat stage is yet to come in this case. Trial court is directedto frame the charge under s.307 IPC against respondent Nos. 2to 4. [Paras 14, 15, 16][50-B-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 676 of 2019.
C
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2018 of the HighCourt of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal RevisionNo. 708 of 2018.
H. D. Thanvi, Ms. Preeti Thanvi, Rishi Matoliya, Advs. for theAppellant.
D
Samar Vijay Singh, Hardeep Singh Sundria, Anish Maheshwari,Yunus Malik, Ms. Saroj Bala, Milind Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.E
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and orderdated 12.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthanat Jodhpur in S.B.Criminal Revision No.708 of 2018 whereby the SingleJudge of the High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by theFappellant herein and affirmed the order dated 02.06.2018 passed by theAdditional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in SessionsCase No.40 of 2017.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of thisappeal, which involves a short point.
G
4. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4(accused persons) are facingprosecution for commission of the offences punishable under Sections307, 323, 325, 336, and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) in the Court of AdditionalSessions Judge, Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
H
5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein (accusedpersons) argued that while framing the charges, no offence under Section307 IPC is made out against them, therefore, no charge should be framedagainst them under Section 307 IPC. Respondent Nos.2-4 argued thispoint by referring to and placing reliance on the two medical reports,which were filed by the prosecution along with the charge sheet in supportto their case.
6. The Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 02.06.2018,accepted the argument of respondent Nos. 2 to 4(accused persons) andaccordingly discharged them from the commission of the offencepunishable under Section 307 IPC and proceeded to frame the chargesin relation to other offences mentioned above. In other words, theAdditional Sessions Judge was of the view that there is no prima faciecase made out against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (accused persons) so faras the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned.
7. The appellant (complainant) felt aggrieved and filed a criminalrevision before the High Court. By impugned order, the High Courtdismissed the criminal revision which has given rise to filing of this appealby way of special leave by the appellant (complainant) in this Court.
8. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in thisappeal, is whether both the Courts below were justified in dischargingrespondent Nos. 2 to 4 (accused persons) insofar as the offence underSection 307 IPC is concerned.
9. Heard Mr. H.D. Thanvi, learned counsel for the appellant andMr. Samar Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2-4(accusedpersons) & Mr. Anish Maheshwari, learned counsel for respondentNo.1(State).
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are constrained to allow this appeal and setaside the impugned order.
11. In our considered opinion, both the Courts below erred indischarging respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from the charge of Section 307 IPC.In other words, both the Courts below erred in holding that no primafacie case is made out against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 307IPC and hence no charge can be framed for their prosecution forcommission of the offence under Section 307 IPC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A12. Indeed, the manner in which both the Courts below proceededto discharge respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from facing the charge of Section307 IPC and holding that no prima facie case is made out against themis faulty and hence cannot be sustained.
13. In our view, both the Courts below wrongly went on toBappreciate the two medical reports, found fault and inconsistencies thereinand then came to a conclusion that no prima facie case is made outagainst respondent Nos. 2 to 4 insofar as the offence under Section 307IPC is concerned.
14. The stage to appreciate the evidence with a view to find faultCor/and inconsistencies in the two medical reports would arise only whenthe prosecution leads evidence by examining the doctors in support ofthe medical reports. That stage is yet to come in this case.
15. Mere perusal of the medical reports filed by the prosecutionwould prima facie show that a case under Section 307 IPC is made outDagainst respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and, therefore, the charge under Section307 IPC should have been framed against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 alongwith the other charges.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds andis accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The AdditionalESessions Judge, who is seized of the trial, is directed to frame the chargeunder Section 307 IPC against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein.
17. We, however, make it clear that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 will beentitled to argue after the evidence is adduced that no case is made outagainst them under Section 307 IPC and the Court will decide the matteron the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution on its merits strictlyFin accordance with law without being influenced by any observationsmade by this Court.
G
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.
H