In a significant ruling on the scope of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Supreme Court has emphasized that courts must carefully examine case materials to determine if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against an accused, rather than relying on mere suspicion or conjecture.
The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in the case of Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 2395 of 2023, decided on July 15, 2024).
Background:
The case arose from a custodial death incident in Uttar Pradesh in 1993. Ram Prakash Chadha, the owner of a wood business, had filed a police complaint about robbery of his business proceeds. His cashier/accountant Ram Kishore, who was a witness in the robbery case, was called to the police station for questioning. Ram Kishore died in police custody a few days later.
Subsequently, Chadha and two police officers were charged with offenses including murder, criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence in connection with Ram Kishore’s custodial death. Chadha filed an application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC, which was rejected by the trial court and the Allahabad High Court.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Scope of court’s power under Section 227 CrPC to discharge an accused
2. Evidentiary threshold required to frame charges against an accused
3. Ingredients required to establish criminal conspiracy
Supreme Court’s Observations:
The apex court made several important observations while allowing Chadha’s appeal and discharging him from the case:
1. On Section 227 CrPC:
“It is an irrecusable duty and obligation of the Court to apply its mind and answer to it regarding the existence of or otherwise, of ground for proceeding against the accused, by confining such consideration based only on the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf.”
2. On evidentiary threshold:
“A few bits here and a few bits there, on which the prosecution may rely, are not sufficient to connect an accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy.”
3. On criminal conspiracy:
“To constitute even an accusation of criminal conspiracy, first and foremost, there must at least be an accusation of meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act, which is not illegal in itself, by illegal means.”
The Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court found that there was “absolute absence of any material to arraign the appellant herein as an accused with the aid of either Section 120B, IPC or Section 34, IPC.” It held that the trial court and high court had not considered the discharge application in the manner required by law.
“We are at a loss to understand, how in the absence of ground for a prima facie case revealed from the materials produced by the prosecution a person who lost his money and lodged a complaint based on the information furnished by his employee can be implicated in an offence, that too a grave allegation of commission of an offence of custodial death amounting to murder, merely because he caused the presence of the person concerned before the Police Station,” the bench observed.
Also Read
The court allowed Chadha’s appeal, set aside the high court order, and discharged him from the case.
Lawyers:
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared for the appellant Ram Prakash Chadha, while Additional Advocate General Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad represented the State of Uttar Pradesh.
