Summary
The accused allegedly assaulted the complainant's family in a dispute over a tin fence, and the complainant's wife died later that night. Relying on the post-mortem finding of cardio-respiratory failure and the absence of serious injuries, the trial court discharged the accused of murder and framed a charge under Section 304 IPC; the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court set both orders aside. At the stage of charge the court must not hold a mini trial. A post-mortem report is not substantive evidence, and whether the death was linked to the assault had to be decided on the oral evidence of the eyewitnesses and the doctor. Because the prosecution cannot lead evidence beyond the charge framed, the prudent course was to let it prove its original case.
Issues
- Whether the trial court, and the High Court in revision, were justified in discharging the accused of murder under Section 302 IPC and framing a charge under Section 304 IPC on the basis of the post-mortem report alone.
Provisions considered
- Sections 226, 227 and 228, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The prosecutor should open the case and give the court a fair idea of it. At the stage of discharge and charge, the court sifts the prosecution's material for a prima facie case or strong suspicion, without holding a mini trial. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 27, 29)
- Sections 145, 157 and 159, Indian Evidence Act, 1872A post-mortem report is the doctor's previous statement. It may be used only to corroborate the doctor, to refresh the doctor's memory or to contradict the doctor; the substantive evidence is the doctor's testimony in court. (¶ 29)
- Sections 302 and 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860Whether the case is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder can be decided only after the evidence is evaluated at the end of the trial. (¶¶ 31, 33)
Held
- At the stage of framing charge the court must apply its mind and not act as a post office. It sifts the material produced by the prosecution for a prima facie case or strong suspicion, but does not hold a mini trial or weigh the evidence as if at trial. (¶¶ 21, 25, 27)
- Before the court frames a charge, Section 226 CrPC requires the Public Prosecutor to give the court a fair idea of the prosecution case. (¶¶ 15, 20)
- A post-mortem report is not substantive evidence. Whether the death by cardio-respiratory failure was connected with the assault had to be decided on the oral evidence of the eyewitnesses and the medical officer. Discharging the accused of murder on the post-mortem report alone amounted to a mini trial, and the High Court overlooked this basic infirmity. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31)
- The prosecution can lead evidence only on the charge framed. Once the higher charge is dropped, it cannot prove murder, whereas if a charge under Section 302 is framed the accused can still argue at the end that the case falls under Section 304. On these facts it was more prudent to let the prosecution lead evidence on its original case. (¶¶ 32, 33)
- The observations are only prima facie and do not express any view on the merits. The trial court must decide the nature of the offence at the end of the trial. (¶ 36)
Result
Appeal allowed. The orders of the High Court and the trial court were set aside, and the trial court was directed to pass a fresh order framing charge in accordance with law, keeping in mind these observations.