BIHARI LAL vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL  APPEAL No. 676  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8823 of 2018) Bihari Lal   ….Appellant(s) VERSUS The State of Rajasthan & Ors.       ….Respondent(s)                   J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final judgment and order dated 12.09.2018   passed by the   High   Court   of   Judicature   for   Rajasthan   at Signature Not Verified Jodhpur in S.B.Criminal Revision No.708 of 2018 Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.04.15 16:53:00 IST Reason: whereby   the   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court 1 dismissed   the   criminal   revision   filed   by   the appellant   herein   and   affirmed   the   order   dated 02.06.2018   passed   by   the   Additional   Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.40 of 2017.  3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point. 4. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4(accused persons) are   facing   prosecution   for   commission   of   the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 325, 336, and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra District Hanumangarh.  5. Learned  counsel for  respondent  Nos.  2  to 4 herein (accused persons) argued that while framing the charges, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against them, therefore, no charge should 2 be   framed   against   them   under   Section   307   IPC. Respondent Nos.2­4 argued this point by referring to and placing reliance on the two medical reports, which were filed by the prosecution along with the charge sheet in support to their case.  6. The Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 02.06.2018, accepted the argument of respondent Nos.   2   to   4(accused   persons)   and   accordingly discharged them from the commission of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and proceeded to frame   the   charges   in   relation   to   other   offences mentioned   above.   In   other   words,   the   Additional Sessions Judge was of  the  view that there is  no prima facie  case made out against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (accused persons) so far as the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned.  7. The appellant (complainant) felt aggrieved and filed a criminal revision before the High Court. By 3 impugned   order,   the   High   Court   dismissed   the criminal revision which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave by the appellant (complainant) in this Court.  8.   So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for consideration in this appeal, is whether both the Courts   below   were   justified   in   discharging respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (accused persons) insofar as the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned. 9. Heard Mr. H.D. Thanvi, learned counsel for the appellant   and   Mr.   Samar   Vijay   Singh,   learned counsel for respondent Nos.2­4(accused persons) & Mr.   Anish   Maheshwari,   learned   counsel   for respondent No.1(State). 10. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. 4 11. In   our   considered   opinion,   both   the   Courts below erred in discharging respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from the charge of Section 307 IPC. In other words, both   the   Courts   below   erred   in   holding   that   no prima  facie   case   is   made   out   against   respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 307 IPC and hence no charge   can   be   framed   for   their   prosecution   for commission of the offence under Section 307 IPC. 12. Indeed, the manner in which both the Courts below proceeded to discharge respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from facing the charge of Section 307 IPC and holding that no  prima facie  case is made out against them is faulty and hence cannot be sustained. 13. In  our  view,  both  the   Courts  below  wrongly went   on   to   appreciate   the   two   medical   reports, found   fault  and   inconsistencies   therein  and   then came to a conclusion that no   prima facie   case is 5 made out against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 insofar as the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned. 14. The   stage   to  appreciate   the  evidence   with  a view to find fault or/and inconsistencies in the two medical   reports   would   arise   only   when   the prosecution   leads   evidence   by   examining   the doctors   in   support   of   the   medical   reports.   That stage is yet to come in this case.  15. Mere perusal of the medical reports filed by the prosecution   would   prima   facie   show   that   a   case under   Section   307   IPC   is   made   out   against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and, therefore, the charge under Section 307  IPC should  have  been framed against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 along with the other charges. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Additional Sessions Judge, 6 who is seized of the trial, is directed to frame the charge under Section 307 IPC against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein.  17. We,   however,   make   it   clear   that   respondent Nos.   2   to   4   will   be   entitled   to   argue   after   the evidence   is   adduced   that   no   case   is   made   out against them under Section 307 IPC and the Court will   decide   the   matter   on   the   basis   of   evidence adduced by the prosecution on its merits strictly in accordance   with   law  without   being   influenced   by any observations made by this Court. ………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                                                              ....……..................................J.         [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; April  15, 2019. 7