IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.BASHA Crl.R.C.No.1299 of 2010 Jayarama Reddiar .. Petitioner/Accused No.10 Vs. The Station House Officer, Gingee Police Station, Gingee, Villupuram District. (Crime No.502/2007) .. Respondent/Complainant * * * Prayer : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 12.10.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.197 of 2009 in S.C.No.290 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam. * * * For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyappa Raj, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R
The petitioner, who has been arrayed as A10, has come forward with this revision challenging the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam, dated 12.10.2010 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.197 of 2009 in S.C.No.290 of 2009 seeking for the relief of discharge.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has been arrayed as A10 and he is the lessee of the lodge, namely, “Devi Lodge”, Gingee. The occurrence in this case is said to have taken place on the night of 27.06.2007 at room No.28 of the said lodge. On that day, a male and a female came to the said lodge and they have taken the room and ultimately the deceased was found lying dead in the said room of the above said lodge. After knowing the said incident, the petitioner/A10 has preferred a complaint to the police on 29.06.2007 and on his complaint a First Information Report was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in this case implicating the petitioner as one of the accused as A10. The petitioner has been charged for the offence under Section 203 IPC and under Sections 201 r/w 302 IPC on the allegation that the petitioner has given false information about the occurrence and he has caused disappearance of the evidence of the offence to screen the offender of murder and rape levelled against A1 to A7.
3. The petitioner, being aggrieved against filing of the charge sheet implicating him as one of the accused, preferred a discharge petition before the learned trial Judge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. contending that the ingredients of Sections 201 r/w 302 IPC and 203 are not at all attracted and there is no material available on record to make out a prima facie case for the alleged offences against him. The learned trial Judge dismissed the said discharge petition and the said order is under challenge in this revision.
4. Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would vehemently contend that there is no material available on record to make out a prima facie case against the accused in order to attract the ingredients of the offence under Sections 201, 203 r/w 302 IPC. It is contended that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and he is only a lessee of the lodge in which, the victim as well as the accused stayed together. It is further contended that soonafter knowing the unnatural death of the deceased, the revision petitioner has preferred a complaint on 29.06.2007 narrating the sequence of events, namely, the allotment of a room in the said lodge to one male and a female, the room was found locked till 29.06.2007 and on that ground, the said room was opened with a duplicate key and found that the deceased lying dead in the bath room and the bloodstains were found in the said room. It is contended that the petitioner has not suppressed or concealed or caused disappearance of any evidence. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further contend that the prosecution has placed reliance only on the alleged confession said to have been given by A1 and A2 before the police and such evidence is inadmissible and on the basis of such inadmissible evidence, the petitioner cannot be implicated in this case.
5. Per contra, Mr.J.C.Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner is the lessee of the lodge, wherein, the deceased was found dead in a room. It is contended that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 27.06.2007 itself, but the revision petitioner/A10 has preferred the complaint only on 29.06.2007 and he has not given any explanation for the delay in giving report to the police. It is further contended that the confession given by A1 and A2 discloses that the revision petitioner has given a false information and caused disappearance of the material evidence. The learned Government Advocate would proceed to contend that even the strong suspicion is enough to frame charge against the accused.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge.
7. A perusal of the materials available on record would disclose that the petitioner is the lessee of a lodge by name “Devi Lodge” situated at Gingee. It is seen that a male and a female have taken a room in the said lodge and they have been allotted with the room No.28 of the lodge on 27.06.2007. A perusal of the First Information Report discloses that the said room was found locked throughout both the days, i.e., on 28.06.2007 and 29.06.2007 and as a result, the room was opened with the duplicate key on 29.06.2007 and the deceased was found lying dead and bloodstains were also found in the said room. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have given a report on 29.06.2007.
8. At the stage of framing the charge, this Court cannot go deep into the matter as the same would amount to appreciation of evidence. It is suffice for this Court to find out whether the prosecution is able to make out a prima facie case on the basis of the materials available on record to attract the ingredients for the offences alleged against the petitioner. As far as the case on hand is concerned, even the objection filed by the prosecution before the trial Court makes it crystal clear that the prosecution has placed reliance solely on the confession said to have been recorded by the police from A1 and A2 and except that single piece of material, there is not an iota of material available on record to implicate the revision petitioner for the alleged offences levelled against him.
9. The only contention put forward by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) is to the effect that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 27.06.2007, but the report was given by the revision petitioner/lessee only on 29.06.2007 and there is no explanation from him for such delay. Merely because of such delay, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner has been involved in the alleged offences of screening the evidence.
10. In respect of the offence under Section 201 IPC, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Saran Mahto Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1999 SC 3435. The Hon’ble in that decision has held as hereunder :
“The two indispensable ingredients for all the three tiers in section 201 are : (1) The accused should have had the knowledge that an offence has been committed or at least that he should have had reasons to believe it. (2) He should then have caused disappearance of evidence of commission of that offence. The prosecution cannot escape from establishing the aforesaid two basic ingredients for conviction of the accused under section 201.”
This Court is of the considered view that the above said two basic ingredients for attracting the penal provision under Section 201 are not at all attracted from the materials available on record to implicate the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A10 in this case.
11.0 It is worthwhile to refer to a few decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of the grounds on which the accused is entitled for discharge.
11.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh reported in AIR 1977 SC 2018, has held as hereunder:
…… 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 is it 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 of 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….
This Court has thus held that whereas strong suspicion may not take the place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it may be sufficient for the satisfaction of the Trial Judge in order to frame a charge against the accused.
11.2. In yet another decision in SUPDT. & REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGAL V. ANIL KUMAR BHUNJA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1980 SC 52, the Honble Apex Court has held as follows :
“The truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged ; may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.”
11.3. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above said two decisions make it crystal clear that a mere suspicion is not enough at the stage of framing charge against the accused and such suspicion should be very strong suspicion founded upon materials available on record to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged. As far as the instant case is concerned, as it is already pointed out, except the confession of the co-accused, there is not an iota of material available on record to attract the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner. The contents of the report given by the petitioner itself is self-explanatory for preferring the complaint on 29.06.2007 in respect of the incident said to have taken place on 27.06.2007 as it is stated in the report that the room was found locked for two days, i.e., on 28.06.2007 and 29.06.2007 which necessitated the petitioner to open the doors of the room with a duplicate key on 29.06.2007. It is also pertinent to reiterate once again that the petitioner has clearly mentioned in the report itself about the presence of the bloodstains in the said room and as such, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has suppressed any material factors. Therefore, it is crystal clear that on the face of the contents of the report given by the petitioner no suspicion much less very strong suspicion could be raised against the petitioner warranting the trial court to proceed with the framing of charge against the petitioner.
12. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a latest decision in P.Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Another reported in AIR 2010 SC 663. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision has held as hereunder:
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 clearly show that Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to fact of case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by 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. 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.
13.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra has clearly made a distinction between a suspicion and a grave suspicion. As already pointed out that there is not an iota of material available on record to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner or the materials on record are sufficient even to raise a very strong suspicion against the revision petitioner.
14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision is allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Judge, namely, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam, dated 12.10.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.197 of 2009 in S.C.No.290 of 2009 is hereby set aside and the revision petitioner has been discharged from the charges for the offence under Section 203 IPC and under Sections 201 r/w 302 IPC.
This revision is ordered accordingly.
gg
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam.
2. The Station House Officer,
Gingee Police Station,
Gingee, Villupuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai 600 104
