COURT NAME: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JUDGEMENT NAME: Saranya vs. Bharathi
JUDGEMENT DATE: 24 August, 2021
JUDGE/BENCH: Dr. DHANANJAYA Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. M.R.SHAH, J.
Code of Criminal Procedure in this The Supreme Court restate that, at Section 482 CrPC in this stage, supreme court isn’t required to understand the evidence to seek out whether the accused is probably going to be convicted or not.
FACT OF THE CASE:
- Saranya’s husband was an Assistant Professor by profession. A year later he was unemployed, Saranya was educated till B. Com and was a home maker.
- Since her husband was unemployed, so it was difficult to maintain daily expenses thus they decided to open a xe-rox shop.
- One of the known person by Bharti, who was working at Guindy Employment Exchange, informed them that if they gave him (Velayutham)he money then he would arrange them for a Government job.
- Later it was supposed that they gave Velayutham Rs.4 lakhs in the duration of 6 months, dated 23.09.2019 and he promised to Saranya that her husband would get the appointment letter the day itself.
- Velayutham asked Saranya and her husband to arrive at Vyasarpadi Flat No. 560, at around 9:00 am. He offered them the ‘Prasadam’ which he got from Sai baba Temple and he said them that he would further converse with them when they would have the ‘Prasadam’.
- Saranya’s husband died on the time of incident by having the Prasadam, and she spitted the Prasadam because it’s taste was bitter. She was feeling drowsy and fell down then the surrounding people called the Ambulance and admitted to the hospital.
CONTENTION OF THE APPLELANT:
Contention of the appellant is that the allegations of giving toxin and even purchasing of toxin is against the most accused only; that there’s no evidence that at the time when the main-accused gave toxin to the deceased, the appellant was present there.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT:
- Facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record having ther is no primar facie evidence agianst respondent no.1.
- Statement of A2 is not allowable in the evidence at all and therefore no reliance can be placed.
- Statement of the complainant recorded on 24.09.2019 at the hospital cannot be treated on dying declaration as later she survived.
“The court held that it has got to contemplate the matter only with a view to look out if there’s a ground for “presuming” that the accused had committed the crime .the supreme court made necessary to compute the matter and documents on record with a view to see from where the fact has been emerged? reveal the existence of all the elements constituting the alleged offence or offences. it’s further observed and held that at this stage the supreme court isn’t required to understand the evidence on record and contemplate the allegations on merits and to look out on the idea of the evidence recorded the accused chargesheeted or against whom the charge is framed is probably going to be convicted or not.”
In my opinion the court has given the right judgment to set aside the Criminal proceeding because there is no prima facie evidence against respondent no.1 and under Section 109 of IPC No evidence against respondent no.2 .
Written By: Nazmin Shaikh (Children Welfare Centre Law College, 4th Year)