Introduction
The trial judge usually cannot examine any material produced by the accused at the time of charge framing or discharge of the accused, says the Supreme Court (SC) in State of Orissa v Debendra Nath Padhi.
The above three Judge Bench overruled the two Bench judgement in Satish Mehra v Delhi Administration & Anr stated otherwise.
Not to discharge an accused grave suspicion needed
In Union Of India v Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr [1979 AIR 366], the SC held that the Judge while framing the charge has “the undoubted power to sift and wight the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out”, even though the test to determine a prima facie case would dependent upon the facts of each case and hence laying down a rule of universal application is difficult.
A roving enquiry is not permissible
However, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion, the Judge would be fully within his right to discharge the accused. A a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighing the evidence as if he was conducting the trial is not expected or even warranted at this stage.
Procedures prescribed by the CrPC
The Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) empowers the prosecution to describe the charge brought against the accused and to state by what evidence the guilt of the accused would be proved.
The Sections 227 CrPC enjoins on the Sessions Judge to decide whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. In so deciding the Judge has to consider the record of the case, the documents produced therewith and has to hear the submissions of the accused as well as the prosecution on the limited question whether there is sufficient ground to proceed.
Similarly, under Section 239 CrPC during the trial of warrant cases on police report. In that situation the Magistrate has to afford the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard besides considering the police report and the documents sent therewith.
That means at the time of charge/discharge the court has to give audience to the accused for deciding whether it is necessary to proceed to the next State.
Documents can be examined in rare cases
In Rukmini Narvekar v Vijaya Satardekar, a division bench of the SC deviated from the view taken in Debendra Nath Padhi case and held that ordinarily at the stage of framing of charge, the material provided by the accused cannot be looked into but there may be rare and exceptional cases where it is quite apparent that prosecution version is completely absurd and cannot be relied upon and in such rare and exceptional cases the material provided by the accused can be looked into at the stage of framing of charge.
References
