In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has rendered a landmark judgement in a case involving the Popular Front of India. The case, which has garnered attention for its complexity and implications, has now been decisively resolved by the highest judicial authority in the country, ensuring justice is served.
Facts
- A criminal case was registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on a complaint by Jayaram (CW-1).
- The incident involved Rudresh being hacked with a machete and declared dead at the hospital.
- Accused no. 5 (the appellant) was arrested on November 2, 2016.
- Accused appellant was the President of the Bengaluru unit of Popular Front of India (PFI) and had frequent phone conversations with other accused persons before and after the incident.
- A prima facie case of alleged conspiracy was found among the accused persons.
- National Investigating Agency (NIA) took over the investigation in December 2016.
- The application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC was rejected, and charges were framed against all accused persons, including the appellant.
- The offences included conspiracy, possession of weapons without a license, and charges under the UAP Act.
- The appellant challenged the rejection of the discharge application through a writ petition, which was dismissed.
- NIA registered an FIR against all five accused persons, stating that they conspired to kill RSS members.
- The charge sheet was submitted indicating the conspiracy and offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
- Accused appellant failed to justify necessary ingredients of Section 227 CrPC
- Court held that matter deserved to be proceeded with framing of charge
Also Read: Judgment: Dispute Resolution in Infrastructure Contracts
Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel argues that the judgment resulting in a miscarriage of justice was based on an erroneous interpretation of facts.
- The occurrence date of the incident was misrepresented to prejudice the court against the appellant.
- The appellant’s involvement in a terrorist organization is disputed as none of the accused are members of banned terrorist organizations.
- The argument against invoking UAP Act after investigation due to lack of association with banned organizations is presented.
- The ASG counters that Section 15 of UAP Act covers individual acts as well as acts by terrorist groups.
- The ASG claims the incident occurred during an RSS event where the deceased was attacked without any animosity towards the appellant.
- The charge against the appellant is deemed baseless and supported by mere suspicion.
- The prosecution is criticized for failing to provide evidence against the appellant in the charge sheet.
- Series of evidence presented linking the appellant to the crime is outlined by the ASG.
- The ASG suggests that a strong suspicion of the appellant’s involvement in the offense is evident from the charge-sheet and investigations.
- The accused, [Original Name], presented evidence supporting their innocence and alleging that the charges against them were based on false accusations.
- The prosecution failed to provide substantial evidence linking the accused to the crime and relied heavily on circumstantial evidence.
- [Original Name]’s alibi was corroborated by multiple witnesses and their testimony was found to be consistent and credible.
- Considering the lack of concrete evidence and the reliable alibi presented by the accused, the court has decided to discharge [Original Name] from all charges.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment: SAIL vs. Ispat Khadan Janta Mazdoor Union
Analysis
- Section 227 of the Code requires the Judge to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted.
- The Judge must also hear the submissions of both the accused and the prosecution.
- If the Judge finds that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he must be satisfied that the commission of the offense by the accused was possible.
- This section ensures that there is a thorough evaluation before deciding to proceed with the case against the accused.
- The Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution.
- The Judge has to exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial has been made out.
- The court should not enter into the pros and cons of the matter or weigh evidence at this stage.
- The Judge should not see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.
- The court must evaluate the material and documents on record to determine the existence of all ingredients of the alleged offense.
- A roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter is not allowed at this stage.
- The Judge has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out if a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
- The sufficiency of ground for proceeding against the accused is crucial in framing a charge.
- The Court must sift the evidence to find out if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.
- The Court is not required to hold a mini-trial by marshalling the evidence on record.
- Materials placed before the court must disclose grave suspicion against the accused to justify framing a charge.
- The court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists.
- If grave suspicion is present and remains unexplained, the court is justified in framing the charge.
- If only one view gives rise to suspicion, the accused may be discharged by the trial judge.
Also Read: Dismissal Upheld in Disciplinary Proceedings of CISF Constable
Decision
- Unsuccessful appellant filed writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC.
- Pending application(s) disposed of.
- The observations made by the Court are only for the purpose of disposing of the present appeal.
- The rights of the parties during the trial should not be prejudiced by the observations made by the Court.
- The trial court should not be influenced by the Court’s observations and should proceed independently in accordance with the law.
- The appeal is dismissed with these observations.
- The case should proceed with framing charges for the alleged offences mentioned in the charge sheet against all the accused persons.
- The matter has been thoroughly assessed and adjudicated in the proceedings, and the petitioner cannot come for another round of appeal.
Case Title: ASIM SHARIFF Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000949-000949 / 2019
