Court Not A Mouthpiece Of Prosecution, Has To Consider Board Probabilities Of Case At Charge Framing Stage: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that while considering the framing of charges, a court cannot merely act as the 'mouthpiece of the prosecution' and must consider the broad probabilities of the case. 

Dismissing a criminal appeal filed by the State against the order of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) discharging the accused, the bench of Justice Alok Awasthi observed:

"considering the matter of framing charges against an accused person(s), that the Court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if it was conducting a trial and also it is to be ascertained that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the respondent/accused has committed the offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice". 

The case arose from an FIR lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix after her daughter, who was stated to be 17 years old, was found missing from home on September 25, 2015. The prosecutrix was subsequently recovered by the police on September 26. 

Based on statements of the mother, sister, and father of the prosecutrix, the accused was arrested on July 2, 2016. A charge sheet was thereafter submitted before the JMFC, wherein the accused/respondent was discharged by the Sessions Judge from the offences of kidnapping (Section 363 of the IPC) and sexual assault (Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act). 

The Government Advocate submitted that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record. The State further argued that the age of the prosecutrix was not examined per the documents placed on record, claiming that at the time of the incident, she was less than 18 years of age. 

The court noted that the question for consideration was "whether the learned Sessions Court has committed error in discharging the respondent from the offence levelled against him or the impugned judgment has been passed is sustainable in the eyes of law or not ?". 

The bench noted that while considering the matter of framing of charges, broader probabilities of the case need to be considered. The court should not make a roving inquiry but has to consider the total effect of evidence and documents produced before the court. 

In the present case, the court examined the statement of the prosecutrix wherein she mentioned that she was annoyed by her parents restricting her from talking to the respondent and therefore she went to Labariya Dam. She claimed that no one had kidnapped her and that she returned home after realizing her mistake. 

The court further noted that none of the witnesses had direct or personal knowledge of the alleged occurrence. Further, no medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted during the investigation. Therefore, the bench held that the investigating officer did not provide substantive support to the allegation. 

The bench noted that "there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the respondent has either kidnapped the prosecutrix or he has committed sexual assault upon her". Further, it was noted that the allegations made in the chargesheet were not supported by material collected by the Investigating Agency during investigation. 

Accordingly, the Special Judge rightly discharged the accused/respondent. The bench therefore dismissed the appeal.