The court’s meticulous examination of the evidence presented in the case before framing charges highlights the critical role of evidence in legal proceedings. This summary delves into the court’s legal analysis regarding the probative value of material on record, acceptance of prosecution’s evidence, and the absence of evidence linking the appellant to the alleged crime. Stay tuned to unravel the complexities of legal reasoning in criminal cases.
Facts
- Appellant received a telephonic message from the deceased’s wife about burn injuries sustained by the deceased.
- Appellant, along with a colleague, took the deceased to a Nursing Home and then to Dibrugarh Medical College where he succumbed to his injuries.
- The FIR was registered at Sivasagar P.S. Case No.198/2009 under Section 302 IPC.
- Charge-sheet filed against three persons including the present appellant for allegedly removing evidence of the crime.
- Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 302/120-B IPC and Section 201 IPC.
- Appellant worked as a Project Engineer at Indian Oil Tanking at the time of the incident.
- Appeal filed against the High Court’s order declining to interfere with the trial court’s order.
- High Court dismissed the revision petition by the appellant against framing of charges on 3 December 2021.
Also Read: Admission Deadline Adherence in Medical Courses
Arguments
- The respondent submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant to suspect the commission of the crime.
- The charges were framed by the trial Judge after examining the charge-sheet and other material available on record.
- It is argued that there is no error in framing the charges by the trial Judge or in the High Court’s decision to dismiss the revision filed by the appellant.
- The respondent’s position is that the charges were based on the available evidence and the actions of the trial Judge and the High Court were justified.
Also Read: From Nominee to Disqualified: Supreme Court Scrutinizes Age Evidence, Declares Election Invalid
Analysis
- The court must consider the overall effect of the evidence and documents presented before it.
- Probative value of material on record cannot be questioned at the time of framing charges.
- Prosecution’s evidence must be accepted as true during framing of charges.
- Absence of evidence connecting the appellant with destruction of evidence.
- Accused can explain materials giving rise to suspicion.
- Investigating officer did not provide prima facie motive for the alleged offense by the appellant.
- No evidence of prior meeting of minds to execute the alleged offense by the appellant and accused.
- The only eye-witness, Hosna Begum, did not implicate the appellant.
- No witnesses mentioned the appellant visiting the deceased’s house before or after the alleged destruction of evidence.
- Appeal allowed as there is no evidence connecting the appellant to the crime
- No prima facie material provided by the prosecution or in the charge-sheet
- Error by the trial court and the High Court in framing charges against the appellant
- The complainant did not name the appellant as the perpetrator of the offense
Decision
- The High Court of Gauhati quashed the order dated 3 December, 2021, and the Additional Sessions Judge’s order dated 21 June, 2012.
- The appellant, Vikramjit Kakati, is discharged from the charges framed against him.
- The observations in this judgment are only applicable to Vikramjit Kakati, and the trial against other accused persons should proceed independently and conclude based on its own merits in accordance with the law.
- The appeal is allowed.
Case Title: VIKRAMJIT KAKATI Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM (2022 INSC 793)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001140-001140 / 2022
