Discharge Under Section 227 Of CrPC, 1973

 

Introduction

Definition of Discharge as per “Black Law Dictionary”:

Discharge here means to release or liberate, as opposed to its legal definition of "discharge," which is to terminate an agreement or obligation. After the prosecution has finished its investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused, the accused may be discharged under Articles 227 and 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

If you believe you have been unfairly charged, you may file a Discharge Application under Section 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A discharge motion can be submitted if the allegations are false, and the court can dismiss the case if the prosecution fails to show enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A person can apply for a discharge if they have been wrongfully accused of a crime. If the prosecution fails to provide sufficient proof of guilt, the court will consider discharging the defendant and the reasons for doing so.

Scope Of Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

An individual is charged with a crime so that he or she is aware of the specific allegations and supporting evidence that will be presented at trial. Only the Court of Sessions will be able to grant a discharge following the implementation of the new Code, also known as Act No. 2 of 1974. In situations that can only be tried in the Court of Sessions, the trial judge is required by law to grant the defendant a discharge if he or she meets the following four conditions:

• ·         Taken into account the case file and the supporting materials;
• ·         After hearing the prosecution's and defense's arguments, it's been determined that there is no cause to proceed with the case against the accused.
• ·         Keeping track of termination notes and explanations.

 Before an individual can be charged with a crime, there must be substantial evidence to support the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the accused committed the crime in question. The former does not call for the Judge to evaluate the evidence. The latter allows for some selective examination of evidence. As a result, there are two distinct types of evidence that are being compared at two distinct points in the criminal procedure whenever the term "prima facie evidence" is used. One must be mindful that there are varying phases to a trial. So, evidence evaluation needs to vary in quality.

At the stage of being aware of anything, suspicion is just that; at the stage of formulating charges, it's "grave suspicion," and at the end of the trial, it's an in-depth evaluation of all the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence. Hence, the evidence is appreciated at a micro level during the charge-drafting stage and at a macro level following the conclusion of the trial. This means that the mental level of appreciation shifts from a superficial one to a more in-depth one at each stage of the criminal procedure.

At the Sections 227 and 228 stage, it is already well established case law that the Court must examine the evidence and paperwork in order to determine whether or not the facts emerging therefrom, when taken at face value, disclose the existence of all the components forming the accused offence. Even at that early point, the Court cannot be expected to take everything the prosecution says at face value, especially if it goes against common sense or the overall probability of the case, and thus the Court may sift the evidence for this limited purpose.

Therefore, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court must consider the material in order to determine whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or whether there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him, and not in order to determine whether or not it is likely to lead to a conviction.

 

Exercise Of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Many Supreme Court rulings have laid out the bounds within which this authority may be exercised. The Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka Lokayukta vs. M. R. Hiremath, 2019 (7) SCC 515, noted that when deciding whether or not to grant a discharge, the Court must assume that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material to determine whether or not the facts emerging from the material, taken at face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessitating a discharge.

The Supreme Court noted that the probative value of the documents has to be gone into at the level of discharge, and that the Court is not expected to dive deep into the matter [State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan & Ors., 2014 (11) SCC 709], citing past decisions on the subject of discharge. Whereas what should really be taken into account is whether or not there is a basis for convicting the accused.

To rephrase, the Court can formulate the charge if it believes the accused might have committed the offence based on the materials on record based on their probative value, but it must reach the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence in order to convict the accused. In addition, the Court stated that a mini trial is not allowed at the time of dismissal under current legislation.

In contrast, the Supreme Court ruled in [M. E. Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2002 (2) SCC 135,] that an accused's defence cannot be considered when the accused requests dismissal under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1973. When an accused person requests dismissal under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no consideration should be given to the accused person's defence.

When Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 refers to "the record of the case," this refers to the prosecutor's submitted evidence, including any documents and physical objects. The accused has no right to produce evidence during the charge-drafting phase under the Code. At this stage in the process, when charges are being drafted, the accused may only submit evidence that the police have already gathered.

Legal Position vis-a-vis Judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India

A judge deciding whether to file charges under Section 227 of the Code has the unquestioned authority to carefully examine the material to determine whether a prima facie case has been made out.

Where the evidence presented to the court shows substantial cause for suspicion against the defendant that has not been adequately explained, the court has every right to formulate charges against the defendant and move forward with the trial.

There is no common standard for what constitutes a "prima facie" case because it must be determined based on the specifics of each individual case. In most cases, however, a judge will be within his legal rights to acquit an accused person if he determines that the evidence presented before him although raising some suspicion but not severe suspicion about the accusation, supports a reasonable alternative conclusion.

That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code, the Judge, who is under the present Code a senior and experienced court, cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but must instead take into account the overall probabilities of the case, the cumulative effect of the evidence and documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case, and so on. But this doesn't imply the judge should wander about asking questions and weighing evidence like he's in charge of a trial.

After contrasting Section 207 of the old Code of 1898 with Section 227 of the current Criminal Procedure Code, the Supreme Court made the following observations in [State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568]:

In addition, the situation is clarified when the plan of the Code is reviewed considering the requirements of the previous Code of 1898. There was nothing like Section 227 in the previous Code. Section 227 was included to the Code to protect the accused from the persistent harassment that inevitably arises during a lengthy criminal trial. Whenever the evidence amassed during an inquiry falls short of the minimum legal requirements, this policy is meant to prevent any further harassment of the accused.

If the evidence, even accepted in full, nevertheless fails to link the accused to the crime, he or she should be released. Sections 207 and 207-A of the prior Code laid out a lengthy process. A Magistrate must adhere to the procedure laid out in Section 207-A in any proceedings initiated based on a police report, as this is the only level of the court competent to hear such cases.

The Magistrate in any proceeding brought on the basis of a police report is required to conduct an inquiry in the manner described in subsection (1), to take evidence in the manner described in subsection (4), to allow the accused to cross-examine and the prosecution to re-examine witnesses in accordance with subsection (5), to discharge the accused if the Magistrate finds that the evidence and documents disclose no grounds for committing him to trial in accordance with subsection (6), and to issue a warrant for his arrest in accord (14).

To implement the Law Commission's proposal from its 41st Report, Sections 207 and 207-A of the Code were deleted and Section 209 was added. The commitment inquiry under the old Code was found to be dragging on for too long and accomplishing nothing. With the goal of speedy case resolution in mind, the Code no longer requires that kind of investigation.

If the accused is not discharged under Section 227, the Court of Session is responsible for formulating the charge under Section 228, rather than the committal Magistrate. This new provision of the Code must also be considered in reaching a decision on the issue. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, the taking of evidence is restricted until after charges have been drafted.

It is helpful to review Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before evaluating the validity of either party's claim.

227. Discharge:

If the Judge concludes that there is insufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused after reviewing the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the Accused and the prosecution in this behalf, he shall discharge the Accused and record his reasons for doing so.

The trial judge has the authority to release the defendant regardless of whether the case will end in conviction or acquittal if there are competing explanations for the evidence and one of them raises simply suspicion rather than grave suspicion. In addition, the phrase "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" makes it abundantly clear that the judge is not merely a post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but rather must apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether or not there is a case for trial. It is not essential for the court to examine the evidence or consider the likelihood of various outcomes once the trial has begun in order to make a determination on this issue.

11. In Section 227, the Judge only needs to sort through the material to determine if there is sufficient reason to proceed against the accused. In other words, the nature of the evidence recorded by the police, or the documents brought before the court that ex-facie indicate that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused to build a charge against him would fall under the purview of the sufficiency of ground.

The next inquiry is whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation of the appellant's argument. Where the materials before the court reveal grave suspicion against the accused that has not been proven, the judge, in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case has been made out. Please consider the case of “Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [(1979) 3 SCC 4:1979 SCC (Cri) 609].

Similarly, State of M. P. Vs S. B. Johari & Ors, (2000) 2 SCC 57, the Supreme Court has ruled that a charge may be dismissed if there is no reasonable basis for proceeding with the trial since the evidence the prosecution plans to provide to prove the accused's guilt cannot, even if accepted without any cross-examination or rebuttal by the defence. 

Regarding “Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2019) 16 SCC 547,” the court held that when it comes to drafting the charge in accordance with the principles established by the Court, the court is not expected to perform clerical tasks like sorting mail. Indeed, the Court must sort through the evidence at hand. What needs to be sorted out is the prosecution's evidence and arguments.

As the court is not acting as a trial judge hearing arguments after all evidence has been presented during a full-fledged trial, the issue is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. The prosecution need only convince the court that there is enough evidence to proceed with the trial. All you need is a solid suspicion. An in-depth suspicion, however, must stem from more than just speculation. The content needs to be appropriate for use as trial evidence. The judge's moral preconceptions cannot be the sole basis for the prominent level of mistrust that exists here. The court will only entertain the prima facie opinion that the accused has committed the crime if there is strong suspicion that he or she has done so, which means that the suspicion must be based on evidence that the court finds persuasive.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the meaning of discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is a legal remedy available to individuals who have been wrongly accused of a crime. The discharge application can be filed if the allegations made against the accused are false and the evidence presented in court is insufficient to establish the offence or establish a prima facie case. The discharge application is a critical legal remedy that provides protection to innocent individuals who have been maliciously charge-sheeted. It helps in preventing wrongful convictions and ensures that justice is served.

The provisions of discharge under Sections 227 & 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 come into play after the investigation of a crime is complete by the prosecution and the charge sheet is filed against the accused. The accused is entitled to be discharged if there is inadequate evidence presented in court and if no prima facie case can be established against him or her. In conclusion, the discharge application is a valuable tool for protecting the rights of individuals in criminal cases, and it plays a crucial role in ensuring that justice is served in cases where innocent individuals have been falsely accused.