MANIBEN DAHYABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order dated 5th May 2000 of Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval, rejecting the application of the revisionists for discharging them from the offences under which they are proposed to be tried. Shri M.J.Budhbhatti for the revisionist and Shri M.A.Bukhari for the respondent have been heard. The impugned order has been examined. The learned counsel for the revisionist has in support of his contention placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of LOKENDRA SINGH V. STATE OF M.P. reported in 1999 SCC (Cri) 371 and has contended that on the basis of this pronouncement the impugned order cannot be sustained. For proper appreciation of this contention, we have to see the brief facts under which the application for discharge was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) Initially the Police submitted a charge sheet after completing the investigation against the accused including the revisionist under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. While considering the application for discharge the learned Additional Sessions Judge has, as required by Section 227 of Cr.P.C., considered the entire material available before him, namely, Post Mortem Report, FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during the investigation u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. He has also referred to a judgement of the Apex Court on the subject.

(3.) The Additional Sessions Jude was justified in taking the view that while framing the charge he has to consider the entire material placed before him by the prosecution and from that material he has to come to the conclusion whether there is prima facie evidence to proceed against the accused or not. At that stage, of course, he can sift and weigh the evidence but not with the purpose that such evidence will be sufficient for conviction of the accused. On the other hand, sifting of the evidence is done only with a view to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is material against the accused for proceeding against him under various Sections for which he has been charge-sheeted. He has also taken correct view that merely because charge sheet is submitted under a particular section of IPC or particular sections of the IPC, he is not mechanically bound to frame charges under those sections as desired by the investigating agency. On the other hand from the material on the record he has to come to his own conclusion that prima facie all the offences appear to have been committed by the accused persons or not. At this stage, the Sessions Judge or the Additional Sessions Judge is required to consider whether the accused might have committed the offence and not that the accused must have committed the offence for which they are to be charged. It is at the later stage, after collection of evidence, that the Sessions Judge has to come to a conclusion whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused have been proved by the prosecution beyond all shadow of doubt or not.