REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1820     OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6964 of 2019)

BHAWNA BAI                                      ...Appellant VERSUS

GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS      …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal  arises out  of  the impugned judgment  and final

order  dated  25.02.2019  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Madhya

Pradesh at Indore Bench in Criminal Revision No.402 of 2019 in

and by which the High Court has quashed the charges framed by

the trial court/Additional Sessions Judge against respondent Nos.1

and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2.   

3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:-

On 24.12.2015, the husband of the complainant-Gopal Saran

at  about  06.00  pm went  saying  to  prepare  food  as  he  is  going

outside  to  plough  the  field  and  shall  return  by  09.00-10.00  pm.

Even by    12.00 mid night, Gopal Saran did not return home; then

his wife Bhawna Bai, appellant herein tried to contact him over his

1

mobile; but he did not receive the call.  The appellant informed her

father-in-law who tried to search the deceased and there was no

information  about  the  deceased.  On  the  next  morning  at  about

08.00 am, the appellant-complainant and her family members came

to  know from the  neighbours  that  Gopal  Saran was lying  in  the

tank//hose  in  the  field  of  the  first  respondent-Ghanshyam.   The

appellant has alleged that when she tried to approach her husband

then Ganesh s/o Mohanlal Kushwah prevented her going near her

husband and locked her in a room and did not allow her to see her

husband.  The dead body of Gopal Saran was taken to government

hospital.  The appellant-complainant alleged that without informing

her, post-mortem of her husband was conducted.  Merg No.94 of

2015 was registered for  investigation under Section 174 Crl.P.C.;

but no case was registered against any person.  

4. On 31.12.2015, the appellant made a written complaint before

the Superintendent of Police, Khargaon and in spite of the same, no

case was registered.  Thereafter, the complainant-appellant filed a

complaint  before the Additional Chief  Judicial  Magistrate (ACJM),

Kasrawad  under  Section  156(3)  Crl.P.C.  on  12.04.2016.   The

learned ACJM accepted the complaint and directed the Officer-in-

Charge, P.S. Kasrawad to register the FIR under Section 302 IPC

2

and proceed with the investigation.  FIR was registered in Crime

No.145 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

Challenging the direction of ACJM to register a FIR, the State of

Madhya Pradesh has filed revision before the Additional Sessions

Judge, Mandleswar in Criminal Revision No.300051 of 2016.  The

said revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2016.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 have prayed

for anticipatory bail  and the same was dismissed by the learned

Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, West Nimad,

Mandleswar  vide  order  dated  10.09.2018.   Being  aggrieved,

respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed appeal before the High Court and the

High Court had granted anticipatory bail to them vide order dated

19.09.2018.  Against  the grant  of  anticipatory bail,  the appellant-

complainant  has  filed  SLP(Crl.)  Diary  No.39785/2018  before  the

Supreme  Court  in  which  the  Supreme  Court  by  order  dated

14.12.2018 has issued notice.  In the meanwhile, charge sheet has

been  filed  against  the  accused-respondent  Nos.1  and  2  under

Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on 26.09.2018.  Upon

hearing  the  prosecution  and  also  the  respondents-accused,  vide

order  dated 12.12.2018,  the learned Second Additional  Sessions

Judge, Mandleswar has found that there are sufficient grounds for

3

proceeding against the accused and framed the charges against the

accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with

Section 34 IPC.

6. Challenging the order of framing charges, respondent Nos.1

and 2 have filed revision before the High Court.  Holding that, while

framing charges, the court should apply the judicial mind and should

give reasons in concise manner for framing charges and that the

trial  court has failed to apply its mind while framing charges, the

High Court vide impugned order dated 25.02.2019 has quashed the

charges  against  respondent  Nos.1  and  2  and  discharged  them.

Being  aggrieved,  the  appellant-complainant  has  preferred  this

appeal.

7. Mr.  Bijan Kumar Ghosh,  learned counsel  appearing for  the

appellant has submitted that there are circumstances like “last seen

together”; “recovery of dead body”; “not informing the family of the

victim immediately upon discovery of dead body”; “not informing the

police”; “recovery of other belongings of dead body including tractor”

and such other circumstances connecting the accused-respondent

Nos.1 and 2 with the death of Gopal Saran and considering those

circumstances,  the  learned  Second  Additional  Sessions  Judge

satisfied himself that there are sufficient ground for framing charges

4

against the accused.  The learned counsel submitted that when the

trial  judge  has  so  satisfied  that  there  are  sufficient  grounds  for

framing  the  charges  against  the  accused,  in  exercise  of  its

revisional jurisdiction, the High Court ought not to have interfered

and quashed the charges framed by the trial court.

8. Mr. Harsh Parashar, learned counsel appearing for the State

of Madhya Pradesh reiterated the contentions and submitted that

the averments in the charge sheet and the circumstances indicated

thereon are sufficient to prima facie link respondent Nos.1 and 2 to

the occurrence and while so, the High Court erred in setting aside

the order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge and quashing

the charges.

9. Mr.  Santosh  Kumar,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

accused-respondent  Nos.1  and  2  submitted  that  even  if  the

averments in the charge sheet are accepted, no prima facie case is

made out against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and there

was non-application of judicial mind by the learned trial judge and

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court

rightly quashed the charges framed against the accused-respondent

Nos.1 and 2 and the impugned order therefore, does not suffer from

any infirmity.

5

10. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused

the impugned order and materials on record.

11. As  per  the allegations in  the charge sheet,  on the date  of

occurrence i.e. 24.12.2015, the accused-respondents Ghanshyam

and  Bhagwan  went  with  deceased  Gopal  Saran  to  the  farm  of

Ghanshyam for ploughing the land with tractor and that all the three

consumed liquor together at the place of incident.  Thus, as per the

allegations in the charge sheet, the deceased was last seen alive in

the  company  of  accused-respondent  Nos.1  and  2.   As  per  the

statement  of  Usha,  wife  of  Ghanshyam and  Nisha,  daughter  of

Ghanshyam,  the  accused-respondent  Nos.1  and  2  had  returned

home at 09.00 pm in the night of 24.12.2015.  Though, the body of

deceased  was  found  in  the  field  of  respondent-accused

Ghanshyam, he did not inform the family of deceased Gopal Saran

nor informed the police about the same.  In the complaint filed by

the appellant before the Magistrate, the appellant has alleged that

“when she went running near to her husband’s dead body, Ganesh

son of Ghanshyam caught hold of her and forcibly locked her in a

room in his house and did not allow her to go near the dead body of

her husband”.  The allegations in the charge sheet also suggest that

the  accused-respondent  Nos.1  and  2  had  earlier  quarrelled  with

6

deceased Gopal  Saran and thereby suggesting a  motive for  the

crime.

12. Though the circumstances alleged in the charge sheet are to

be  established  during  the  trial  by  adducing  the  evidence,  the

allegations in the charge sheet show a prima facie case against the

accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2. The circumstances alleged by the

prosecution  indicate  that  there  are  sufficient  grounds  for

proceedings  against  the  accused.   At  the  time  of  framing  the

charges,  only  prima  facie case  is  to  be  seen;  whether  case  is

beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage.  At the

stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient

ground for proceeding against the accused.  While evaluating the

materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only  prima facie

case against the accused is to be seen.

13. Chapter  XVIII  Crl.P.C.  deals  with  “Trial  before  a  Court  of

Session”.   As per  Section 226 Crl.P.C.,  the public  prosecutor  is

required to open the case before the Sessions Court by describing

the  charge  brought  against  the  accused  and  stating  by  what

evidence, he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused.  Section

227 Crl.P.C. deals with discharge and it reads as under:-

“227. Discharge.—If, upon consideration of the record of the case and

the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of

7

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.”

14. Considering the scope of Sections 227 and 228 Crl.P.C., in

Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another  (2012) 9 SCC 460,

the Supreme Court held as under:-

“17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in

terms of  Section 228 of  the Code,  unless the accused is discharged

under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions, the court is

required to consider the “record of the case” and documents submitted

therewith  and,  after  hearing  the  parties,  may  either  discharge  the

accused or  where  it  appears  to  the  court  and in  its  opinion  there  is

ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall

frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the section exists,

then  the  court  would  be  right  in  presuming  that  there  is  ground  to

proceed against  the accused and frame the charge accordingly.  This

presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the

court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the

facts  leading  to  that  offence  is  a  sine  qua  non  for  exercise  of  such

jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case. There is a

fine distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228 of the

Code. Section 227 is the expression of a definite opinion and judgment

of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage

of framing of charge, the Court should form an opinion that the accused

is  certainly  guilty  of  committing  an  offence,  is  an  approach  which  is

impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code.

………..

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 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

8

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: (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

9

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

situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be

made will be one under Section 228 and not under Section 227.””

15. After  referring to  Amit  Kapoor,  in  Dinesh Tiwari  v.  State of

Uttar Pradesh and another (2014) 13 SCC 137, the Supreme Court

held that for framing charge under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is

10

not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is

framed.  On perusal of record and hearing of parties, if the judge is

of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the

accused has committed the offence triable by the Court of Session,

he shall frame the charge against the accused for such offence.

16. As discussed above, in the present case, upon hearing the

parties  and  considering  the  allegations  in  the  charge  sheet,  the

learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that

there were sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused has

committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with

Section 34 IPC.  The order dated 12.12.2018 framing the charges is

not a detailed order.  For framing the charges under Section 228

Crl.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons.  As

pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is

not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to

be seen.  As held in  Knati  Bhadra Shah and another v. State of

West  Bengal  (2000)  1  SCC  722,  while  exercising  power  under

Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required record his reasons for

framing the charges against the accused.  Upon hearing the parties

and based upon the allegations and taking note of the allegations in

the charge sheet, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge

was satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against

11

the  accused  and  framed  the  charges  against  the  accused-

respondent Nos.1 and 2.  While so, the High Court was not right in

interfering  with  the  order  of  the  trial  court  framing  the  charges

against  the  accused-respondent  Nos.1  and  2  under  Section 302

IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the High Court, in our view, erred

in  quashing  the  charges  framed  against  the  accused.   The

impugned order cannot therefore be sustained and is liable to be

set aside.

17. In  the  result,  the  impugned  judgment  dated  25.02.2019

passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore Bench in

Criminal Revision No.402 of 2019 is set aside and this appeal is

allowed.   Sessions  Trial  Case  No.ST/150/2018  is  restored  and

Second  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Mandleswar,  West  Nimad,

Madhya Pradesh shall proceed with the matter in accordance with

law.  We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the matter.

………………………..J.                                                                           [R. BANUMATHI]

………………………..J.                                                                    [A.S. BOPANNA]

.………………………..J.                                                                     [HRISHIKESH ROY]

New Delhi; December 03, 2019.

12