# STATE OF BIHAR ----·---~-· v. RAMESH SINGH . August 2; 1977 - **Citation:** [1978] 1 S.C.R. 257 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1976-02-18 - **Bench:** N. L. Untwalia, P. N. Sidnghal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-bihar-v-ramesh-singh-august-2-1977-7270 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote .: CirinJi11al Procedure Code 1973-Sections 226, 227 and 228. Te~tr for discharging an accused-Presumption of innocence-Difference betwetn cake for conviction or case for proceeding further • At J.00 A . .M. on the 26th of November 1973 SmL Tara Devi, wife of respondent. a professor of Economics, in Munshi Singh College, .l\fotihari in State cf Bihar, was found burning in the Kitchen of their house. She died as a result ·of excessive bum injuries on her person. The brother of Tara. Devi · rushed to the spot and found that respondent and his brother were standing near tte burning body of Tara Devi but were not taking any steps to extinguish tho f.re. He lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station charging the respondent for having conimitted the offences under s. 302 and 201 of Penal COO.e. Charge sheet l',as submitted against him by the police and the case was committed to Sessicns Court for trial of the respondent u/s. 209- of Cr.- P.C.- 1973. _ The Sessions Judge discharged the accused under s. 227 of Cr. P. Code· 1973 on the r:round that there was not sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial agaill!t respondent and he was discharged in accordance with section 227. The State of Bihar \vent in revision before ·Patna High Court, which wa drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prhna facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. 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 the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial. then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in bis acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under section 227 or section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to he made will be one under section 228 and not under section 227. In Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The Sta'te of West Bengal and another(1)-Shelat, J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the majority fo the Court referred at page 79 of the report to the earlier decisions of this Court in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose(') where this Court was held to have laid down with reference to the similar provisions contained in sections 202 and 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 "that the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction, and observed that where there was· prim" f<1cie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter had to be left to he decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of a process could not be refused." Illustratively, Shelat J, further added "Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-con(radictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refued if that evidence makes out a prima facie case." The fact that Tara Devi died an unnatural death and there were burn in juries on her person dGes not seem to be in doubt or dispute. The question to be decided at the trial would be whether the respondent, as is the prosecution case, had murdered her and set fire to her . body or whether she committed suicide by herself setting fire to it This undoubtedly is a serious matter for decision at the trial. But at the stage of framing the charge, copious reference to Modi's Medical Jurisprndence and judging the post-mortem report of the Doctor who performed the autopsy over the dead body of the lady meliculqusly was not quite justified as has been done by the Trial Judge (I) [197312 S.C.R. 66. 2. [19641 3 S.C.R. 629. BIHAR v. RAMESH SINGH ( Untwalia, J.) 261 According to the presecution case the respondent was in lo~e with A one of his girl students, named, Nupur Ghosh and this led t<> the serious differences between the respondent and his wife, the unfortunate Tara Devi, inducing the former to clear the path of his misad<1enture in the manner alleged by the prosecution. On the other hand, the defence, S'1'ems to suggest that the alleged love-affair of the respondent led Tara Devi to commit suicide. Whether the respondent will be abk to prove. his defence at the final stage of the B trial may not be of much consequence. Surely the prosecution will have to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. Although at the time of the alleged occurrence were present in the house of the respondent his brother, his brother's wife, and children the prosecution does not seem to be in possession of any occular testimony of an eye witness of the occurrence. The case will 'largely, rather, wlmlly, depend upon the circumstantial evidence. A stricter proof will have C to be applied for judging the guilt of the accused with refcr<'nce to the various circumstantial evidence against him. The at this stage the Additional Sessions Judge was not right whon he said-"it appears that there is neither direct evidence nor any circumstantial' evidence to connect the accus~d with the alleged murder of Tara De\!i". He also ought not t6 have referred to tho varying opinions of the Circle Inspector and the Superintendent of Police, Motihari as to the subD mission of Charge-Sheet against the respondent. Apart from some other circumstances, as it appears, the prosecutiG.B. proposes to prove in this case, and whether it will 'succeed in proving them or not is a different matter, the High Court has enumerated three circumstances in its impugned order. We may just add, and that is only for the purpose of a cursory observation for deciding the E matter at this ·stage, that the story of assault on Tara Devi by the respondent a day prior to the occurrence is perhaps sought to be proved by the evidence of Chandrcshwar Singh, the informant, and it seems, he would also try to say, rightly or wrongly, that at the time of the said a>Sault the respondent had giv~n her a threat to kill her. The High Coort felt persuaded to take the view that the three circumstantial facts, even if proved, would not be incompatible with the inno- -, cence of the accused and then added "There may be strong suspicion against the opposite party, but the three circumstances which I have jui;t mentioned above, cannot be said to be incompatible with the defence of the accused." The said observation of the High Court is not quite apposite in the background of the law which we have enunciated above with refrrence to the provisions of sections 227 and 228 of the Code. G F0r the reasons stated above, we set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and the Sessions Court and direct that appropriate charge or charges will be framed ag'dinst the respondent and the tri~l shall proceed further in accordance with the law. P.H.P. Appeal allowed.