TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Dismisses Petition; Upholds Discharge Due to Weak Evidence and Delayed Complaint Filing.</h1> The court upheld the Magistrate's decision to discharge the accused under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C., finding no grounds for interference. The decision was ... - Issues Involved:1. Correctness of the Magistrate's order discharging the accused under Section 245 Cr.P.C.2. Evaluation of evidence and the application of Section 245(1) versus Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.3. Consideration of inherent improbabilities and delays in the complaint.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Correctness of the Magistrate's Order Discharging the Accused under Section 245 Cr.P.C.The primary issue is whether the Magistrate's decision to discharge the accused under Section 245 Cr.P.C. is correct. The complainant's husband was facing prosecution under Section 302 I.P.C. for allegedly causing the death of Sabu. The complainant, related to the deceased, alleged that she was wrongfully restrained and criminally intimidated by the accused on the night of the incident. The Magistrate, after examining the evidence at the pre-charge stage under Section 244 Cr.P.C., concluded that no charge was liable to be framed and discharged the accused.Issue 2: Evaluation of Evidence and the Application of Section 245(1) versus Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.The complainant argued that the Magistrate overstepped his jurisdiction by weighing the evidence to decide its acceptability, which is not expected at the stage of Section 245 Cr.P.C. The complainant contended that the Magistrate should have considered whether a case, which if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C., rather than determining if the charge was groundless under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. The respondents argued that the Magistrate correctly considered the evidence to decide if it warranted a conviction, which is permissible under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C.Issue 3: Consideration of Inherent Improbabilities and Delays in the ComplaintThe inherent improbabilities in the complainant's evidence were highlighted, such as the improbability of her visiting the house of a neighbor with whom there was animosity at night. The delay in filing the complaint more than two months after the incident, without a convincing explanation, was also considered. The Magistrate noted that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 was inherently improbable and uninspiring, and the complaint did not reveal that the complainant had apprised PWs. 2 and 3 of the incident. These factors led to the conclusion that the case, if unrebutted, would not warrant a conviction.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Magistrate's order of discharge under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. did not warrant interference. The inherent improbabilities and the delay in the complaint were significant factors in the decision. The court emphasized that the quality of consideration under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. is more sublime than at the initial stage of Section 203/204 Cr.P.C., and the evidence must be considered for its probative value without mechanically accepting it. Thus, the petition was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
