Discharge by Session Court In India [ Relevant Provisions that a Lawyer should read]

 Discharge by Session Court: Understanding Relevant Provisions

Discharge by Session Court is a significant aspect of the criminal justice system in India. It is a process by which the court frees an accused person from further prosecution in a criminal case. In this article, we will discuss the provisions related to discharge by Session Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act.

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Section 4 of the CrPC lays down the hierarchy of criminal courts in India. The Sessions Court is the second-highest court in the criminal justice system, just below the High Court. The Sessions Court has the power to conduct trials for serious offences and can award the death penalty in some cases.

Sections 193, 194, 209, 227, and 228 of the CrPC deal with the power of the Sessions Court to discharge an accused person. These sections are discussed below:

Section 193: "Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session" - This section states that a Sessions Court can take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a police report or upon a complaint being made by a person authorized to make such a complaint.

Section 194: "Withdrawal of cases and appeals by Sessions Judges" - This section empowers the Sessions Court to withdraw a case from a lower court if it believes that the case is one that should be tried by the Sessions Court.

Section 209: "Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it" - This section states that when a case involves an offence that is exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, the Magistrate must commit the case to the Sessions Court.

Section 227: "Discharge" - This section empowers the Sessions Court to discharge an accused person if it believes that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.

Section 228: "Framing of charge" - This section states that if, after taking evidence, the Sessions Court believes that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, it shall frame a charge against the accused.

Indian Evidence Act

The Indian Evidence Act contains provisions that are relevant to the discharge of an accused person. Sections 5, 6, and 47 of the Act are discussed below:

Section 5: "Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts" - This section states that evidence may be given in court to prove the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue and also any fact that is relevant to the fact in issue.

Section 6: "Relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction" - This section states that facts that are part of the same transaction as the fact in issue are relevant, regardless of whether they occurred at the same time and place as the fact in issue.

Section 47: "When previous judgments relevant" - This section states that a previous judgment is relevant when it is made by a court of competent jurisdiction and the matter adjudicated upon is directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent trial.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the power of the Sessions Court to discharge an accused person is an essential aspect of the criminal justice system in India. The provisions related to discharge by the Sessions Court under the CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act provide a framework for the court to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused. These provisions ensure that the justice system is fair and transparent and that the rights of the accused are protected.

Cases laws:-

Sure, here are some examples of cases where the Sessions Court has exercised its power to discharge an accused person:

State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh - In this case, the accused was charged with murder. The Sessions Court discharged the accused as it found that there was no evidence to show that the accused was involved in the crime. The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's decision, and the Supreme Court also dismissed the State's appeal against the discharge order.

State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram - In this case, the accused was charged with murder, and the prosecution relied on the testimony of a single eyewitness. The Sessions Court discharged the accused, stating that the evidence of the eyewitness was unreliable. The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's decision, and the Supreme Court also dismissed the State's appeal against the discharge order.

Deepak Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra - In this case, the accused was charged with abetment to suicide. The Sessions Court discharged the accused, stating that there was no evidence to show that the accused had abetted the suicide. The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's decision, and the Supreme Court also dismissed the State's appeal against the discharge order.

These cases illustrate how the Sessions Court can discharge an accused person if it finds that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The court must evaluate the evidence presented by the prosecution and determine whether there is a prima facie case against the accused. If the court finds that the evidence is insufficient or unreliable, it can exercise its power to discharge the accused person.