Summary
The Court restored murder charges against two accused after the High Court discharged them for want of reasons in the charge-framing order. The alleged last-seen circumstances, conduct and prior quarrel supplied a prima facie basis to proceed. At that stage the court required sufficient grounds or strong suspicion, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. A judge framing charges under Section 228 CrPC need not record detailed reasons or conduct an elaborate evidentiary inquiry.
Issues
- Whether the allegations provided sufficient grounds to frame murder charges.
- Whether absence of detailed reasons justified quashing the charge-framing order.
Provisions considered
- Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The provision for reasoned discharge was distinguished from the tentative assessment supporting framing of charges. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- The charge-sheet allegations of the deceased’s company with the accused, discovery of the body, subsequent conduct and prior quarrel disclosed sufficient grounds for proceeding. Their truth required evidence at trial and was not finally determined. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- At the charge stage the court assessed a prima facie case or strong suspicion; it did not apply the final standard of proof or meticulously evaluate the probable defence and evidentiary merits. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- A Section 228 order framing charges did not require detailed reasons. The Sessions Judge had considered the allegations and heard the parties, and the High Court erred in quashing the charges on the stated ground. (¶¶ 15, 16)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court judgment of 25 February 2019 set aside and Sessions Trial No. ST/150/2018 restored. Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleswar directed to proceed according to law. No opinion expressed on merits.