STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RIKHIRAM KASHAIYA PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this revision against an Order of discharge passed by Sessions Court.

(2.) THE non-applicant Rikhiram Patel was at the material time Lecturer in High School in village Dhamdha of district Durg in Madhya Pradesh. He was committed to the Court of Session to stand his trial for the offence of murdering his wife Kamlabai. The Sessions Court however "upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith", as contemplated by Section 227, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, thought that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the non-applicant. Accordingly, the Sessions Court by Order dated 6-7-1984, discharged the non-applicant of the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by that Order, the State has filed this revision.

(3.) AT the stage of Sections 227/228, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Sessions Judge has to find out, if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce, even if unrebutted, would show that the accused committed the offence or not. If not, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding and the accused should be discharged. The truth, vrracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged at that stage. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. See State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018. That is not to say that the Sessions Judge is to merely act as a post office to frame a charge at the behest of the prosecution. He has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case, in order to determine that a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact it is not necessary for the Sessions Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities but he may evaluate the material to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at the face value establish the ingredients constituting the said offence. See Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar, AIR 1979 SC 366 and the latest decision Niranjan Singh v. Jitendra Bhimraj, AIR 1990 SC 1962.