Accused Can Be Discharged Only If No Case Is Made Out Even After Presuming Entire Prosecution Evidence To Be True: SC
Accused Can Be Discharged Only If No Case Is Made Out Even After Presuming Entire Prosecution Evidence To Be True: Supreme Court
1. Context and Importance of Discharge
Discharge is a procedural step where the court, after examining the materials presented by the prosecution, decides that no case is made out against the accused, and thus the accused is not required to face trial.
It is an important safeguard to protect innocent persons from unnecessary trials.
The stage of discharge typically occurs after the police investigation and filing of the charge sheet but before framing of charges and commencement of the trial.
2. Legal Principle
The Supreme Court has consistently held that:
At the discharge stage, the court must accept the prosecution’s evidence and materials as true, including all reasonable and possible inferences in favor of the prosecution. Only if even after such a presumption, no case is made out against the accused, discharge can be ordered.
This principle ensures that discharge is not used as a shortcut to deny a trial where there is a prima facie case.
3. Rationale
The court does not weigh evidence or assess credibility at the discharge stage.
The court's role is limited to checking whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused.
If there is a scintilla of evidence that can connect the accused to the offence, trial must proceed.
This approach protects the right of the accused to a fair trial while safeguarding against frivolous or vexatious prosecutions.
4. Supreme Court Judgments
a) Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012)
The Court held that the trial court must consider the prosecution evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
The court cannot discharge the accused by disbelieving or reappraising the evidence.
Only when no incriminating material is found even on accepting prosecution evidence as true, discharge can be granted.
b) Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)
While dealing with arrest and detention, the Supreme Court reiterated the need for prima facie satisfaction before proceeding against accused.
It emphasized avoiding unnecessary harassment but cautioned that discharge should not be ordered without proper scrutiny of prosecution material.
c) State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (2003)
The Court stated that a discharge is only justified when the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, does not disclose any offence.
If material raises a reasonable suspicion, the court should not discharge the accused but proceed with trial.
d) Daya Ram v. State of Haryana (1996)
Held that discharge is akin to an order of rejection of complaint, requiring careful examination of prosecution case on its face.
The court should not examine or test the credibility at this stage but only check for a prima facie case.
5. Test at Discharge Stage
| Step | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Presumption of truth | Prosecution evidence taken as true |
| Inferences in favor of prosecution | All reasonable inferences drawn in prosecution’s favor |
| No weighing of evidence | No assessment of witness credibility or conflicting evidence |
| Prima facie case presence | Even a minimal incriminating material suffices |
| Discharge only if no case made out | If no evidence, discharge is warranted |
6. Practical Impact
Courts must be cautious not to prematurely discharge accused persons on flimsy grounds.
Discharge should not be used as a tool to short-circuit the trial process.
It protects the prosecution’s right to try the accused where there is some evidence of involvement.
It also protects the accused from frivolous prosecution when no evidence exists.
7. Summary
| Aspect | Principle |
|---|---|
| When discharge can be ordered | Only if no case is made out even after presuming prosecution evidence true |
| Role of court at discharge | To check prima facie case, not to decide guilt |
| Evidence assessment | No weighing or credibility assessment at this stage |
| Importance | Balances accused’s right and prosecution’s duty |
8. Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s approach ensures that discharge is granted only in exceptional cases where the prosecution has no evidence against the accused. This maintains the balance between protecting the innocent and ensuring that genuine cases proceed to trial.
RELATED Blog
0 comments