NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1140   OF 2022    (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).1211 of 2022) VIKRAMJIT KAKATI …..Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM  …..Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The   instant   appeal   is   directed   against   the   order   passed   by the High Court of Gauhati dated 3 rd  December, 2021 declining to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast   Track   Court),   Sivasagar,   in   Sessions   Case   No.57(S­S)   of 2012,   rejecting   the   discharge   application   filed   by   the   appellant under Section 227 Cr.P.C.   1 3. The   seminal   facts   relevant   for   the   purpose  are   that   on   28 th April, 2009, an FIR was lodged by  one Smt. Rajia Islam  (mother of   the   deceased)   at   Sivasagar   Police   Station   stating,   inter   alia, that her son Lt. Qureshi Sahidul Islam was burnt to death under suspicious circumstances inside his rented house at Sivasagar by his   wife   and   the   present   appellant.     Her   son   succumbed   to   the injuries   sustained   by   him   while   on   the   way   to   hospital.     On receipt of the complaint, an FIR was registered at Sivasagar P.S. Case   No.198/2009,   under   Section   302   IPC.       The   police   filed charge­sheet   under   Sections   302/120­B/201/118   IPC   against three   persons   namely   Smt.   Zahida   Imdad   Islam   (wife   of   the deceased), Smt.  Jahanara Islam   (mother  of  Zahida  Imdad Islam) and the present appellant, along with a list of thirteen witnesses. The   only   allegation   levelled   against   the   present   appellant   was that he had, in conspiracy with other accused persons, removed the   evidence   of   offence   from   the   place   where   the   alleged   crime had been committed.   4. The   learned   trial   Judge   initially   by   order   dated   21 st   June, 2012, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, came to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against him and others and fixed 17 th   July, 2012 as the next date of hearing for framing 2 of   charges   and   thereafter,   charges   were   framed   against   accused Zahida   Imdad   Islam,   Jahanara   Islam   and   the   appellant   under Sections   302/120­B   IPC   and   under   Section   201   IPC   against Jahanara   Islam   and   the   appellant   by   the   order   dated   17 th   July, 2012.  5. The   revision   preferred   by   the   appellant   against   framing   of charge came to be dismissed by  the High Court under the order impugned dated 3 rd  December, 2021, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.   6. The   main   thrust   of   the   contention   of   the   counsel   for   the appellant is that the appellant has no nexus with the commission of   crime.     He   was   a   friend   of   the   deceased   working   in   the   same office.   At the time of the incident, the appellant was working for the   Indian   Oil   Tanking   (IOT),   a   joint   venture   of   Indian   Oil Corporation   and   Oil   Tanking   of   Germany,   as   Project   Engineer, Sivasagar.     On   the   fateful   morning,   the   appellant   received   a telephonic   message   from   the   wife   of   the   deceased   that   her husband had sustained burn injuries and requested him to come to their house and after receipt of the information, he, along with other colleague Tariqul Rafique @ Maju, came to the house of the 3 deceased   by   his   car.       Seeing   burn   injuries   on   the   body   of deceased,   he   along   with   Tariqul   Rafique   took   him   to   the   nearby Nursing   Home   at   Sivasagar   and   after   preliminary   treatment,   he was taken to Dibrugarh Medical College, where he succumbed to the   injuries.       So   far   as   the   present   appellant   is   concerned,   his intention was only to help out the deceased in getting proper and immediate medical treatment.     Except this, there is no nexus of the   appellant   in   the   commission   of   alleged   murder   of   the deceased   and   there   is   no   material   against   him   and   no   witness has deposed against the appellant.   7. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   the   Ld.   trial   Judge was   at   least   required   to   examine   the   existence   of   prima   facie material   regarding   participation   of   the   appellant   in   the commission of crime or existence of grave suspicion against him and   when   there   is   no   prima   facie   material   of   suspicion   what   to say   of   grave   suspicion,   the   charge   cannot   be   framed   and accordingly the counsel submitted that the charge framed against the   appellant   by   the   learned   trial   Judge   is   not   sustainable   as there is no evidence against him and prayed for its discharge.   4 8. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent,   on   the   other   hand, submitted   that   there   is   sufficient   evidence   against   the   appellant to   suspect   commission   of   crime   and   only   after   examining   the charge­sheet and other material available on record, the charges were framed by the learned trial Judge and in the given facts and circumstances,   there   is   no   error   committed   by   either   the   trial Judge   by   framing   of   charge   or   the   High   Court   in   dismissing   the revision preferred by the appellant under the order impugned.  9. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   with their assistance perused the material available on record. 10. Before   we   proceed   to   examine   the   matter   on   merits   any further,   it   will   be   apposite   to   take   note   of   the   legal   principles applicable   seeking   discharge,   for   which   we   may   refer   to   a judgment   of   this   Court   in   P.   Vijayan   v.   State   of   Kerala   & Another 1 ,   which has been further reiterated by this Court in the recent judgment in   M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of   Investigation,   Bengaluru 2   and   discerned   the   following principles: 1 (2010) 2 SCC 398 2 (2020) 2 SCC 768 5 “ 17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused. 17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution. 17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court. 17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, “cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”. 17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion. 17.6. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, 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, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. 17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true. 17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused.” 11. Taking   into   consideration   the   aforesaid   legal   principles,   if we   consider   the   facts   of   the   present   case,   it   reveals   from   the perusal   of   charge­sheet   and   other   material   available   on   record that   the   investigating   officer   has   not   brought   even   prima   facie material   in   the   charge­sheet   as   to   what   was   the   motive   on   the 6 part   of   the   appellant   to   commit   the   alleged   offence.     The deceased,   in   the   instant   case,   was   a   colleague/friend   of   the appellant   working   in   the   same   organization.   On   the   fateful morning, the appellant learnt about burn injuries of the deceased through   accused   no.1   i.e.   the   wife   of   the   deceased   on   telephone at about 5.30 a.m. on 22 nd  April, 2009. Without any loss of time, the   appellant   along   with   his   colleague   Tariqul   Rafique   @   Maju went   to   the   house   of   the   deceased   by   his   car   and   took   the deceased along with his wife (A­1) to the nearby nursing home at Sivasagar.       Since   the   said   nursing   home   was   not   having   the burn   ward,   after   giving   the   initial   treatment,   deceased   was referred to the Dibrugarh hospital.    The deceased along with his wife   and   colleague   of   the   appellant   went   to   the   Dibrugarh hospital   on   an   ambulance,   but   unfortunately,   the   deceased succumbed to the burn injuries in the hospital.    12.     The   only   eye­witness   in   the   present   case   is   Hosna   Begum, domestic   servant   present   in   the   house   of   the   deceased.       She neither   in   her   statement   under   Section   161   Cr.P.C.   nor   under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated anything about the involvement of the appellant   in   the   commission   of   the   alleged   offence,   rather   she categorically   stated   in   the   statement   that   at   the   instance   of   the 7 deceased,   the   wife   of   the   deceased   called   the   appellant   for   help and   further   stated   that   the   appellant   took   the   deceased   to   the hospital in his car.     She is the best witness of the case.   Rest of the   witnesses   whose   statements   were   recorded   by   the   police nowhere   implicated   the   appellant,   except   the   complainant   who was not even an eye­witness to the incident. 13. Regarding   the   allegation   of   destruction   of   evidence   by   the appellant   along   with   the   wife  of   the   deceased   (A­1),   no   material, oral/documentary,   has   been   placed   by   the   police   in   the   charge­ sheet,   which,   in   any   manner,   connect   the   appellant   with   the destruction of evidence.  To the contrary, as per the statement of the witnesses which are recorded, the fact that reveals is that the appellant accompanied the deceased to the hospital at Sivasagar and  from   there to  Dibrugarh, where  the deceased  succumbed to the injuries and based on the information given by the appellant, the   deceased’s   relatives,   including   the   complainant,   came   to   the hospital   and   from   there   his   body   was   taken   to   his   native   place Tezpur   for   performing   the   last   rites.     Here,   no   other   witnesses, whose   statements   were   recorded,   stated   anything   about   the appellant visiting the house of the deceased either before or after the   alleged   destruction   of   evidence   has   taken   place,   except   the 8 complainant,   who   even   in   the   FIR   did   not   make   any   statement against   the   appellant,   but   later   made   a   bald   statement   of   her strong suspicion in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 14. So   far   as   the   conspiracy,   as   alleged,   is   concerned,   some evidence   ought   to   have   emerged   or   the   prosecution   could   have brought   on   record   some   prima   facie   material   whereby   the appellant   along   with   the   accused   persons   had   prior   meeting   of mind   to   execute   the   alleged   offence   and   in   the   given   facts   and circumstances,   there   is   no   justification   for   the   appellant   to undergo   the   agony   of   facing   trial,   to   which   the   appellant   is   not even   prima   facie   connected.       Still   the   prosecution   filed   charge­ sheet   on   30 th   August,   2011   for   offence   implicating   the   appellant under   Sections   302/120­B/201   IPC   along   with   the   wife   of deceased (A­1) and mother of wife of the deceased (A­3).   15. There is no iota of evidence which, in any manner, connect the   present   appellant   with   the   commission   of   crime   and   neither the   trial  Court  nor  the   High  Court  has  even  taken  pains  to  look into   the   record   as   to   whether   there   is   any   oral/documentary evidence   which   in   any   manner   connect   the   appellant   with   the alleged   incident   of   crime   and,   in   our   considered   view,   in   the absence of even a prima facie material, oral/documentary, being 9 placed by the prosecution in the charge­sheet, the trial Court as well   as   the   High   Court   have   committed   serious   error   in   framing charge   against   the   appellant.     Even   the   complainant   also   in   the complaint has not named the appellant as the perpetrator of the offence, rather she stated that she suspects foul play.   16. In the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the   appeal   deserves   to   be   allowed.     The   order   impugned   passed by   the   High   Court   of   Gauhati   dated   3 rd   December,   2021   as   well as   the   order   dated   21 st   June,   2012   passed   by   the   Additional Sessions   Judge   (Fast   Track   Court),   Sivasagar,   in   Sessions   Case No.57(S­S) of 2012   are quashed and set aside and the appellant stands discharged from the charges framed against him.    17. We further make it clear that the observations made in this judgment   are   only   confined   to   the   appellant,   Vikramjit   Kakati and   the   trial   Court   may   proceed   with   the   matter   against   other accused   persons   independently   without   being   influenced   by   the observations   made   herein   and   conclude   the   trial   on   its   own merits in accordance with law.   18. The appeal is accordingly allowed.   Pending application(s) if any, also stand disposed of.     10   …………………………J. (AJAY RASTOGI)                                                               .………………………… J.  (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI August 04, 2022. 11