Case Title: The State Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Babita & Ors
Date of Decision: 04.09.2023
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 267/2018 & CRL.M.A. 5655/2018
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Factual Background
- An FIR was registered on June 30, 2015, in Delhi, based on the statement of the complainant Akash.
- The complainant alleged that he had been confronted and assaulted by several individuals, including Anil, Johnny, Sanjay, Vikas, and Ankush.
- The accused individuals allegedly forcefully apprehended the complainant, physically assaulted him, and transported him to a different location.
- During the altercation, the female relatives of the accused arrived at the scene and allegedly instigated and physically assaulted the complainant.
- Charges were filed against multiple accused individuals under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act.
- The trial court framed charges against some accused while discharging others, including Babita, Bala, Rekha, and Kavita, stating that there was no evidence of their involvement in the alleged incident.
- The State Government filed a Criminal Revision Petition seeking to set aside the trial court’s order of discharge.
Legal Issues
The main legal issue in this case was whether the Trial Court’s order to discharge the accused/respondents was justified at the stage of framing of charges under Sections 228 and 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Contentions
- The petitioner (State Government) argued that the Trial Court failed to consider crucial evidence, including the contents of the FIR, statements of the complainant, and statements of independent witnesses, which indicated the involvement of the discharged accused.
- The respondents, who represented themselves, contended that the Trial Court’s order was valid as there was no evidence of their involvement, and the case was falsely filed against them to pressure them not to testify in another murder case.
Observation and Analysis
The judgment emphasized the principles governing the framing of charges, as established by various Supreme Court decisions. It highlighted that at the stage of framing charges, the Court’s role is not to assess the evidence’s truthfulness or sufficiency but to determine whether a prima facie case exists based on the material on record. The Court should not conduct a mini trial but should consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The judgment also stressed the gender-neutral nature of the legal system and cautioned against making presumptions based on gender.
Legal Principles on Framing of Charge
- Sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) govern the framing of charges and discharge.
- At the stage of framing charges, the court assesses whether a prima facie case exists against the accused, not whether the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- The court should not interfere with the charges framed unless there are strong reasons to do so in the interest of justice or to avoid abuse of the process of the court.
- The court’s assessment should be based on the materials on record, and the truthfulness, sufficiency, and acceptability of the evidence are determined at the trial stage.
Decision
The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order to the extent that it discharged the accused/respondents and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court. The Trial Court was instructed to pass a fresh order on framing of charges after hearing both parties and in accordance with the law. The judgment also directed the distribution of the judgment to relevant judicial authorities for awareness and adherence to its contents.
Conclusion
One critical aspect of the judgment is the court’s critique of gender-based presumptions. It strongly asserts that the legal system must adhere to principles of gender neutrality and avoid making assumptions about an individual’s actions based on their gender. The court expresses concern over the trial court’s differentiation between male and female accused without valid grounds, stating that such an approach goes against the principles of justice and equality.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Ananya Chaudhary