State Of Ut Chandigarh Through Additional Public Prosecutor v. Sonu Yadav Alias Kaddu And Others

 

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

      

  
!"#!

$# %#&

& '( ) *&  !# +
,  - ./012   3

4
2 ,.4 -, 0,,



 


 
 
  

,.4 -, 0,, 3
  

 
 





!

 " #
 
$



 
 
%
&
  

'




()
* +"
 
"

", " -


%'
!#.!/
 0. /
#. /
,"
,". /
,.!/

",

1*%
" !

'
% 

$ 
  
2 $

 $


3 
  


' 

%'
",

1*%


2
' 


'
 

'


2 
'
 

'





 
%
&

 

'








 





'
2



$


 

1

'


'






 




 

'
 
  

'$
 








4
'

5 6
%' 0
  
'
 $
 $
 '


'
 $

' 

  7 8


 
2
'

 




'
 

3 ''
1
 
1
%
9 

 
:


 


 
% 4 $
2
2


;<%
$

$ 
  
2
8




 

 



 )
2 

 2
 $



'''

''

 
'
 


2


'8


= 
2

2
 

'





 

" ", " -


,!"
 
2

' 
 

2 


8



 '
 

'





 
''


2
2 

2
!

$
 



 '8 2

''


''



 '8


' 

 '


'


 '
4


 
'
 



$
 


  


8 
2
 
> 
 



 
 
 









4
'

''

$


$





  '8
 
 


() 
 
'
2
 

' 
2 
'  $
>  !

 
'

' $
  
'  
2 


4'

 
%'

 



'

%'
",

1*%
2
 8


''


'


'



%
62 



 
 
%
&
$
 







'
 



'

%'
",

1*%
2 



''

 5  

'


''
 $

 



 
!

 " #
 


?
)


'


'  
2 




''


%'
!#
.!/
#
. /
 0
. /
,"
,
. /
,
.!/

",
1 * % 
 $
 
 '
'
 
 



'



@  
4
2
 
$
'  4
7 8


@ 
1  


 
4


'



4
* !

-
2
' 
 

 

4
* 


#
2
' 


 
)
 
 
 
4
2'
2
' 
 

 
2
 



 


 
8


2

'




4




'






'
 

 
4
2
 

 


 





'
 '
 
'



'




%'
",
1*% 5
@
 
 '
'


% 
  
 


@

 
4
2
 
'

4$

 ' 
2
 
   

 


'
'


'



'

%'
",
1*%


 
)



 

 







'


'






'


2 



 
 ' 
7 8


@ 
1  
2
 
 

" ", " -

2 
'


4
$
''



 
'





'
@
 '  4
7 8


@ 
1  
2
 
#
4
2'

 
 
 3
 
 

2
  
 



 

@ ' 
2
 
 
  

 
*
 
$
 !

3
 

 

2
:
 



- 3
 



2
8
 

 # 3
 

'
 
$
 




'

 =
'



 
 

4
 
$
'  4
7
''


 
'





 
4
* !

-
2'
2



 
2
' 
 

 

4
* 


#
2
' 


 


A

$




2

  

2
'




@ 
@


'
@ 
 
 $
' 
2 

"0 ", " -

2 ' 

"B ", " -
@ 
 
 '
'
 








'



$
'







'
 
 
 $
4$
2 
' 


 

 6
)
2



 

'

'' '
 


 



'
'






'



'




%'
",
* % 
 


'




$




 
6'




'





 
%
&
  

"+ " " 0
2
=



'




''

 $

 
''
2





'

 


 
%
&
  

"+ " " 0 (




 

'


' -  



 


3 
  
 


 # @ 
 
 '
'
  
 
 










$

 2


 

   
%
&
  



' 

 ''

  



'
)


 ' '

 



 


() 

3 ''

 
$
 


 
 $
'


2
 $
2 
'
  


8 


 $
 '8

' 
7 8
2
 
> 
 



 

' 
 

4

 
 


$
'
 
'






@ 
2

 =
'



'
2





2'
2
' 
 

 
@ 

  
 
 

 
  

2 


 
2
'
$
    


> 
 


'''
' $






82
 




''


'



'




%'
",


1*% 62 


''


$



 



'


'

%'
",
1*%
2 

$
'



2 

' '
'



' 

4


 


)



 

 

' 



$
=

> 
2

 

'


>




  

 ''

  



''

'
' 
 '
@ 
'
 
 





 


 

 '

 



 
 
'







 



 
  


4



$

' 
 
 $
 









'

 
 



  '
2

'



'' '
2
 2



'




%'
",
1*%

2 

 
 

 

$
 

 


  






 
 '

' + 1 
 


''



2 $

 
 

''
 
  
 



'
'


'



'

%'
",

1*%
2 



3 ''



'

' $

 

2



 2
 




' 


'




  )

'>
 '
'


$



' 
'

6C 
%

'


    

      

 
2

2
'
 


 
2
2
 
2

=

' 

%'
+

  

     

     


 ' 

%'
B

  






'


10. "Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:

1. That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.

2. Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

 6

3. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

4. That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code, the Judge, which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." ,

 '
'




 '

D

  

 ! "##

 $%2

6C 
%

 
'

2



'
 

' 

' 



'

 

'


2




'

'' '
 '
'


 
 
2

2
' "21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:

(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to

 7 determine prima facie cases would depend upon the facts of each case.

(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.

(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution

 8 states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal".

"

)
 




$

6C 
%

 

 
 

' 




2




2

 '




 ' 
2



 

'


 




''

 


>'

4' 




'


'


 
''
 




'


'


'' )
 
  
 
'
>'


 8







  













' 4' 
$









''$


2
 8
2



 


 '
'
$

'

'
'



2'


'
 


'
'' '


''




' 



'


 
'




 


 



$
>


D  & 

'

'  "##"

 % 
9 (   ()    '(

 '

'  ''

*  (   '( +, "#"

* '#



'$


'


'

9(

() '(    '( 

 '

'  ''

   (   '( "#"

 , ,    $

6C 
%

  
 
 


 '


'

 '


'

$

  


'


  


%'
+!
   

' $

 


'










 


' 

'


'


''  
 

 2

 
2



 
'


 2


' 

$
 
  



 
2




'
 

'

D 

8

'



'
 


'

2
 

2




 

2



' 



 
' 

''
2
' $
 



 
  '
2'
2
 



'


''




2





'

!

E
$


 
'


 2


' 

'

'' '



'




'
 


 
 


() 
2


 
''

 
 $
'
'



'
 


 $
'


3 

$
 
 
 
 $ 62 


=
2'


' 






2







'


'
'
'



'




%'
",

1*%



4 $
 


'

$



%

 


'
 
'
 '

'
2
2
 

' 
7 8
 
 
 4


2'
4
* !

-
 



 

2



 

 

''
 '
2 
4
* 

#
2
' '

$
' 


 
% '

$


4$
2 


 
  





'

  

'


 

 
4$
2 
 

 



'


 $
'

 

'


 
;



 =
'





$

'


 
$
  
'='

$


4
 
$

'  
' 
 



 
$

"0 ", " -

"B ", " -


 
 
 '

'

'


 

'
$



 
'
''



$
 

 - 


''




 

 
 

' 
'
' 

 '

 





$
=

' 
2

 
 





'
 
'





'


 


= $
2

 

 


()


 >
'

? $
 '8F

> 

 

' 
'


$
 
'


'


' 




'
 

'


'3


 

'
'


'



'




 
'' '
 

4
 

4
'

'




''' # )


'





 
 2
2
 '


 

 

 
 
4$
 



$
 
 


$

 
4

' 


'




2 
$


'





'



4


 $


$
4$
' 
 



'
 



 '

'
$
'




   

'

 

'
$
4$
2'
'
 

$
'





82
' $

 '
%'
",

1*%








'
 

 8



'


 
'
 
'



'






 
 8


() 





' 



'
' $


' 

%'
",

1*% 0 
 
 
%
&
  
2
 



 
$
'

 

4
 =
'





  
 
''

 




 

''
 



'
'


%'
",

1*%
2 






 

 
''




$
 
 $
 $

 
 '
2  
 '

>'

  
4'





 '



4'
>'
 8
$


''
2


'
 


 
 ' 

' 
=$





'

 


 


 



 
  ''$

 
 




 
!

 " #
 
$

 
 
%
&
  

 $

   (MANISHA BATRA)



    







JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No