JUDGMENT : (G.R.UDHWANI) 1. The appellant, having been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376, 363, 366 and 511 etc. of Indian Penal Code and having been interalia sentenced to life imprisonment by impugned judgment and order dated 21.04.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Third Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.65 of 2004 is before this Court questioning the impugned judgment and order. 2. At the outset, we may note that after hearing this matter and perusing the evidence on record, our conscience is shocked because it is a case where the appellant should not have been in jail even for a minute but has suffered rigorous imprisonment for not less than 8 years only because he appears to have been framed by the Investigator and the prosecutor even though apparently he is innocent as argued by learned counsel for the appellant. 3. A complaint came to be lodged on 08th March, 2004, produced at Exh.51 by P.W.1 Maniben complaining about her daughter aged 7 years having gone missing on the previous day around 7:00 or 7:30 in the evening while her daughter was playing outside her hut and she had gone along with her soninlaw to attend a phone call of son of her sisterinlaw from Chiloda Village at the shop of one Jaysukhbhai situated opposite to the hut of the complainant. It was her case that on return she did not find her and presumed that the child might have gone to watch the television in the house of Vajubhai. That since it was a dinner time she went to the house of Vajubhai to fetch her but was not found there, and therefore, inquired at the house of Mohangiri as also in the vicinity, but in vain. Even at the night the search was continued and as it was full moon night, she could find her daughter in the openyard of closed house of one Vitthalbhai Koli at about 9.00 on finding her bleeding through nose, she cried havoc, in response to which her soninlaw and nephew Ashok Ratnagiri and others came to the place. Her soninlaw and she herself and others helped her daughter to Jasdan Hospital where the victim was declared dead. The police had come and recorded accidental death. 4. Her soninlaw and she herself and others helped her daughter to Jasdan Hospital where the victim was declared dead. The police had come and recorded accidental death. 4. In this context the evidence of defence witness ( for short “DW1 ) and PW1 is required to be appreciated at this stage to find out as to under what circumstances the appellant was suspected and how the case thereafter came to be framed against him. While keeping in mind the fact that complaint was given on what happened between midnight intervening 7th and 8th throws considerable light as to how the appellant was dealt with. 5. The P.W.1 admits appellant and his two brothers being picked up by Investigator in the intervening midnight of 7th and 8th March, 2004. The brother of the appellant is examined as D.W.1 who has also corroborated the said fact. The appellant also came out with the said fact in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. D.W.1 deposed that his brothers were beaten up by the Investigator in the police station to make them confess the guilt of the appellant. As per the deposition of D.W.1, ultimately the Investigator promised him that two other brothers (other than appellant) will be freed once the appellant admits the guilt. Such promise was kept and on 9th March, 2004, the appellant was booked and his other brothers were allowed to go. The fact that the appellant was beaten up and nail bites were inflicted on his chest in a bid to establish as if the victim offered the resistance at the time of rape was substantiated by Doctor Purshottam P.W.3, who testified the age of the said nail bites being within 24 hours of 9th March, 2004 i.e. the date when appellant was examined. It is pertinent to note that D.W.1 deposes of investigator concerned having beaten the appellant severely during an unofficial custody between 7th and 8th March, 2004. That fact has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Further the prosecution was not able to challenge the version of D.W.1 in his crossexamination. Thus, the above material clearly indicated that the appellant and his brothers were in unauthorised custody of the Investigator on and after 7th midnight until 9th when the appellant was shown as arrestee on police record. That fact has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Further the prosecution was not able to challenge the version of D.W.1 in his crossexamination. Thus, the above material clearly indicated that the appellant and his brothers were in unauthorised custody of the Investigator on and after 7th midnight until 9th when the appellant was shown as arrestee on police record. Thus, when P.W.1 in her complaint lodged on 8.3.2004 states that she suspected the appellant, the appellant was already in unauthorised custody of the Investigator clearly suggesting that she was under the influence of the investigator. It was also stated by her in the complaint that on being asked today i.e. next day of recording of accidental death, she is stating that a person named Mahadevgiri Mohangiri (appellant) who is Rajasthani Marwadi, aged about 19 years, staying in the nearby vicinity had been sexually harassing her daughter and her daughter made complaint to her and she rebuked Mahadevgiri but he would not mend his ways. She explained in the complaint that fearing the loss of her reputation she did not disclose such facts to anyone. Thus it is more than clear that before the appellant was taken into police custody, P.W.1 did not suspect the appellant between the intervening night of 7th and 8th, as the assailant of her daughter. 5.1 What can be noted from the complaint is that initially the police recorded accidental death entry of daughter of the complainant in its record on 07th March, 2004. That means at that point of time P.W.1 did not suspect anyone. It was only on 8th i.e. on the next day of incident that she pointed a finger of suspicion on the appellant and came out with the story of deceased having complained to her about sexual harassment etc. It may be recalled that P.W.1 admits of appellant and his brothers having been taken into police custody even before his actual date of arrest. No legal documents including the arrest memo came to be drawn at that point of time. Article 21 obliges the State not to infringe the liberty of individual except by the procedure established by law. The provision of Criminal Procedure Code particularly Section 41 authorises the police officer to arrest a person without warrant if he, inter alia, suspects the person having committed an offence or needs his custody for proper investigation. Article 21 obliges the State not to infringe the liberty of individual except by the procedure established by law. The provision of Criminal Procedure Code particularly Section 41 authorises the police officer to arrest a person without warrant if he, inter alia, suspects the person having committed an offence or needs his custody for proper investigation. There is nothing on record indicating existence of such contingency in the intervening night of 7th and 8th March, 2004. Thus it is crystal clear that from the inception, the investigator acted prejudicially. 5.2 It is bounden duty of the Investigator to inform the nearest Magistrate about such arrest and produce the arrestee before the concerned Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest. Such obligation was also not discharged. Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code as well as Article 22 of the Constitution obliges the Investigator to inform the family members as also the arrestee about the fact as also the grounds of the arrest. This procedure was also not followed by the Investigator, and thus, it is more than clear that he had retained unauthorised custody of the appellant and his two brothers until 9th when formal arrest memo came to be drawn. In our view, the Investigator has to account for these lapses inasmuch as he has completely given a go bye to the constitutional mandate and played with the invaluable constitutional rights available to three individuals under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, for the reasons best known to him. 5.3 From the testimony of P.W.1 and the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as also the testimony of D.W.1, it is apparent that the Investigator, in order to humiliate the appellant, paraded him in the town and squatted him like a hen with both of his hands crossing beneath his knees and reaching his ears. 5.4 The Investigator did not stop there. We find a material manipulation in the significant articles in the nature of semen, saliva and other body contents of the appellant obtained through the Medical Officer as also the garments of the victim. The testimony of the doctor P.W.3 Exh.19 indicates that the semen, saliva and hairs of the appellant were drawn from his body and were handed over to the Police Constable on 9.3.2004. The testimony of the doctor P.W.3 Exh.19 indicates that the semen, saliva and hairs of the appellant were drawn from his body and were handed over to the Police Constable on 9.3.2004. The testimony of PSO and the constable clearly indicates that such articles were not officially received in the police record but was unofficially retained by P.W.17. P.W.17 admits that fact. The purpose of such retention was obvious when rest of the articles in the nature of garments of the victim was received by P.W.17 on 22.3.2004. On 26th of March 2004, these garments were dispatched by P.W.17 merely by making an entry in the police record, to the FSL, thus allowing himself a sufficient time to manipulate and stain the garments of the victim with semen. It is also pertinent to note from the testimony of doctor P.W.2 that the garments of the victim were not sealed by him but open custody was given to P.W.17 thus making a room for him to manipulate. It is also pertinent to note from the testimony of FSL Officer P.W.16 Exh.57 that the phials containing semen and saliva etc. had no proper seal or address of the sender except the case number. He also admits the fact that in panchnama Exh.35 there is no reference of blood stains on the pettycoat of the victim. The Investigator admits having entered the receipt of articles in his case diary but not the name of the person i.e. Chandrabhansinh Vaghela, Head Writer, Jasdan Police Station who handed over the articles to him and the date and time thereof. He has fumbled when explanation as to the person drawing receipt of the articles was sought from him and then explained that the article receipt no.18/04 dated 8.3.2004 and article receipt no.19/04 dated 9.3.2004 was drawn by one J.C.Vaghela. Under the circumstances, it does not surprise us when the investigating officer pleads ignorance about the fact as to whether the articles find mention in police station register or not or whether the articles in the nature of body contents of the appellant were received by him in person and admits having not made any such entry in his case diary and fails to explain as to how such articles were received by him. It is worthwhile to note that in his testimony he has just failed to justify all these facts and has simply pleaded ignorance. It is worthwhile to note that in his testimony he has just failed to justify all these facts and has simply pleaded ignorance. Even under such circumstances the prosecution did not deem it appropriate to examine PSO who came to be examined as a defence witness i.e. D.W.2 who corroborates all the material facts showing infirmities in handling the important articles by investigator. He clearly testifies that until 26.3.2004 he was not handed over any articles as also the lack of entry for that between 7.3.2004 and 27.3.2004 in the police record or station diary. He has also explained the procedure that before dispatching the articles to the FSL, a necessary entry is required to be made in the police record which has not been done in the present case. Surprisingly, the prosecution cross examined him but could not get anything in its favour. Thus, it is apparent that the material did not reach the FSL with the proper seal, and therefore, cumulative effect of all these facts lead us to an inference that the Investigator manipulated the evidence to strengthen his grip over the appellant. That apart, the Investigating Officer confirms about he having not kept the record of the additional statement of P.W.1 recorded by him. This again appears to be with an oblique motive. He also admits of having not mentioned about blood stains on articles pant and shirt of the appellant. He also admits the fact that at the relevant point of time the garments were not in torned condition. He also admits the fact that in panchnama Exh.35 there is no reference of blood stains on the pettycoat of the victim. 6. It appears that, under such circumstances, discovery was allegedly made through appellant. It is also borne out that the house of the appellant was razed on 8th March, 2004 by the family members of the victim. The appellant was shown to have been arrested on 9th March, 2004, and it was claimed by Investigator that, at his instance, the garments worn by him at the time of commission of offence were discovered from the said house. This fact is serious enough to doubt the integrity of the Investigator inasmuch as if the house was razed on 8th, the question of discovery of garments by accused on 9th from that house does not arise. This fact is serious enough to doubt the integrity of the Investigator inasmuch as if the house was razed on 8th, the question of discovery of garments by accused on 9th from that house does not arise. It is thus clear that the attempt of the investigator was to plant as much material as can be against the appellant. 7. All the three eye witnesses have turned hostile. P.W.20 was attributed with a statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that she saw the victim and few boys going and appellant following her few hours before her dead body was found. She, however, disowned such statement. Had she owned that statement, what could have been determined from her testimony would have been that the appellant was following the victim and other children and that fact by itself would have been in adequate to establish the appellant having been last seen with the victim immediately before her death. Similarly, P.W.8 was attributed with a statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that few hours before recovery of dead body of the victim, the appellant was talking to the victim. This witness also disowned the statement. Had she owned it, it would have merely suggested that the appellant was talking to the victim. The witness is not alleged to have stated that the victim was induced or taken away by the appellant. Similarly, P.W.21 was attributed with the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that she had seen the appellant standing near the place where the offence took place. Even if this statement was accepted, it could not establish the appellant having been seen last with the deceased. Thus, it appears that after taking the appellant and his brothers in unauthorised custody as aforesaid, statements of these witnesses were recorded to the above effect, all of whom resiled from it and rightly so. 8. With this, we may turn to testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.14. The story of P.W.1 and P.W.14 appears to be at variance with each other inasmuch as, as per the testimony of P.W.1, the deceased had complained to her about sexual harassment by appellant about a month back and she did not disclose it to any one out of fear of loss of her reputation. She rebuked the appellant, he refused to mend his ways. She rebuked the appellant, he refused to mend his ways. If this fact was correct, then in all probabilities, the mother will not leave her minor child unattended even for a minute. It is pertinent to note that when the victim was playing, her sister Aruna was available at the residence and yet P.W.1 and P.W.14 left for attending telephonic call without instructing Aruna to look after the child. This conduct of the witnesses establishes absence of fear in their mind about safety of the victim. Further, neither of these witnesses suspected the appellant as the assailant before his unauthorised custody by police. 9. According to these witnesses, the victim was fond of watching TV and she would go to neighbours for the purpose. P.W.1, however, is established to have omitted the mention of said fact in her statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. 10. In a bid to search the victim, the houses of several neighbours including that of the appellant were searched, albeit appellant is not established to have a television, his house was searched not as a suspect but in the natural course. Had there been an occasion of rebuking the appellant a month back as deposed by PW 1, he would have been an immediate suspect. Admittedly appellant also joined the search party. Thus, the conduct of P.W.1 and P.W.14 in searching the house of the appellant with a belief that the victim might have visited his house in a natural course to watch television belies their say that the victim was being sexually harassed by appellant. As noticed above, initially accidental death of the victim was recorded in police records and the appellant came to be suspected only after he was taken into unauthorised custody by police officer. Further, the story of sexual harassment appears to have been cooked up inasmuch as P.W.14 contradicts P.W. 1 by stating that it was only a day before the incident that the complaint was made by victim to P.W.14 about sexual harassment by appellant, and that despite censure, the appellant refused to mend his ways, whereas, according to P.W. 1, such complaint was given by victim to her and the appellant was rebuked by her a month back. Further, if her story was correct, she, being a mother, would not have allowed the victim to visit the house of appellant and she would have suspected the appellant immediately after the victim went missing. Instead, she searched house of the appellant, amongst others, in a bid to find out the victim, in a natural course without suspecting the appellant. Further, P.W.14 has quoted the appellant as the messenger for the telephonic call that was received at the shop of Jaysukh, thus contradicting P.W.1 who does not quote him as messenger to establish appellant’s presence at the relevant point of time at the house of P.W.1. Thus an attempt was made by P.W.14 to show artificial presence of accused immediately the offence at the house of the complainant. 11. There is also variation amongst P.W.1 and P.W.14 as regards the story of a telephonic call having been received at the shop of Jaysukh. According to P.W.1, a telephonic call was received at about 8:00 o’clock from her motherinlaw’s husband’s sister and P.W.14 accompanied her to receive the call. Whereas, according to P.W.14, the phone call was from some other person. On this count there are variance as regards the duration for which the call was attended; by whom it was attended and the time of return after attending the call. According to P.W.1, both of them returned together, whereas, according to P.W.14, P.W.1 came after 3 or 4 minutes of P.W.14 reaching the house. As per testimony of P.W.1, when she returned, the girl was not there, but, as per deposition of P.W.14, she was playing outside the hut. These contradictions are very material since both the witnesses claimed their presence at same place and at same time but are giving contradictory versions. Further Jaysukh, owner of the shop who received the telephonic call on behalf of P.W.1 has not been examined. Thus the whole story on this count canvassed by P.W.1 and P.W.14 appears to be doubtful. 12. In the above factual and legal background, the arguments made by learned APP that the trial court has passed just and proper order and that this Court should not interfere in this appeal has no merits. 13. Thus the whole story on this count canvassed by P.W.1 and P.W.14 appears to be doubtful. 12. In the above factual and legal background, the arguments made by learned APP that the trial court has passed just and proper order and that this Court should not interfere in this appeal has no merits. 13. Since we find that a serious prejudice is caused to the appellant only because of insensitive and callous approach to the matter on hand, we deem fit to remind all concerned the duty cast upon them which needs to be discharged with a sense of justice and not as a formality to complete the case. 14. The criminal case rests upon three important constituents which can be described as its pillars being: (1) investigation, (2) prosecution and (3) the court. 14.1 The investigator is obliged to adhere to various provisions of law including those contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure to make bonafide efforts to discern the truth. Various provisions have been made in Chapter V of Criminal Procedure Code prescribing the power to arrest and the limitations thereon. Section 41 empowers the police officer to arrest a person without warrant if the conditions contemplated in clauses (a) to (i) are satisfied. A bare perusal of this provision contemplates existence of one of the reason stated in said clauses for arresting a person. Chapter XII interalia deals with the powers of investigator. Under Section 157 the investigator is, interalia, obliged to submit a report if he suspects an offence and then to proceed either in person or depute a competent officer to the spot for investigation. Section 159 empowers the Magistrate receiving such report to either direct investigation or proceed himself or depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed for holding preliminary inquiry if necessary. Thus, according to this provision, the necessary facts can be collected at preliminary stage itself. 14.2 Under Section 160, the investigator is empowered to require attendance of witnesses and under Section 161, the police officer is empowered to examine the witnesses and under Section 163 prohibits the police officer against offering inducement as mentioned in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, Sections 160, 161 and 163 ensures collection of the facts in relation to an offence without inducement. 14.3 Section 165 empowers the investigator to make search etc. Thus, Sections 160, 161 and 163 ensures collection of the facts in relation to an offence without inducement. 14.3 Section 165 empowers the investigator to make search etc. for collection of further facts in relation to an offence and Section 169 obliges him to release the accused if in his custody when evidence is deficient. Thus whole of the chain of the above sections lays emphasis on collection of evidence after submission of the report to the competent Magistrate and significantly under Section 169 a person cannot be detained in absence of sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion justifying forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate. The provisions needs to be strictly observed as it ensures a liberty of a person within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The emphasise to collect sufficient evidence or reasonable ground against the accused can be noticed again in Section 170 which contemplates sending of the cases to the Magistrate when evidence is sufficient or a reasonable ground exist against the suspect. Section 172 requires the investigator to maintain day to day diary and Section 173 requires him to submit appropriate report to the competent Magistrate. Thus, the role of the investigator assumes importance in that, he is a first person to determine about the liberty or exposure of a person to a criminal trial. A slight callous approach on his part may play with the liberty of an individual and erode his valuable right to life and liberty guaranteed under the constitution, irretrievably, and may hold him even personally liable. The investigator therefore has to be pious in discharging his obligations. 15. As noticed above, the appellant was arrested unofficially even before his name was mentioned as a suspect in the complaint. It appears that for the reasons best known to the investigator or with an enthusiasm to solve a case a person against whom no suspicion of commission of an offence existed, the investigator arrested him and planted whole evidence against him and thereby flagrantly violated Article 21 which is core of the Constitution. 16. Equally important is the role of the Public Prosecutor. In fact, being an officer of the Court, he is obliged to function as a prosecutor and not a persecutor or a police prosecutor. He is a minister of justice. 16. Equally important is the role of the Public Prosecutor. In fact, being an officer of the Court, he is obliged to function as a prosecutor and not a persecutor or a police prosecutor. He is a minister of justice. His principal role is to assist the Court to arrive at the truth and to do justice between the community and the accused according to law and the dictates of fairness. The prosecutor is obliged to be mindful to the fact that he is not representing private interest in litigation but he is representing the community. In carrying out his function, it behoves him – neither to indict, nor on trial to speak for conviction except upon credible evidence of guilt; nor to do even a little wrong for the sake of expediency, or to pique any person or please any power; not to be either gullible or suspicious, intolerant or overpliant; in the firm and abiding mind to do right to all manner of people, to seek justice with care, understanding and good countenance. “[Per: R.R.Kidston QC, Former Senior Crown Prosecutor of New South Wales, in “The Office of Crown Prosecutor (More particularly in New South Wales)” (1958) 32 ALJ 438].” 16.1 It is a specialised and demanding role, the features of which need to be clearly recognised and understood. It is a role that it is not easily assimilated by all legal practitioners schooled in an adversarial environment. It is essential that it be carried out with the confidence of the community in whose name it is performed. “It cannot be overemphasised that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction; it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength, but it must also be done fairly. The role of the prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility. The role of the prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings.” [Per : Rand, J in the Supreme Court of Canada in Boucher v The Queen (1954) 110 CCC 263 at p.270]. 16.2 An ideal prosecutor must consider herself/himself as an agent of justice. There should not be on part of a Public Prosecutor seemly eagerness for, or grasping at a conviction. A Public Prosecutor should not by statement aggravate the case against the accused, or keep back a witness because her/his evidence may weaken the case for prosecution. A Public Prosecutor should place before the Court whatever evidence is in her/his possession. The duty of a Public Prosecutor is not merely to secure the conviction of the accused at all costs but to place before the court whatever evidence is in the possession of the prosecution, whether it be in favour of or against the accused and to leave the court to decide upon all such evidence, whether the accused had or had not committed the offence with which he stood charged. It is as much the duty of the Prosecutor as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice. The duty of the Public Prosecutor is to represent the State and not the police. A Public Prosecutor is an important officer of the State Government and is appointed by the State under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She/he is not a part of the investigating agency. She/he is an independent statutory authority. She/he is neither the post office of the investigating agency, nor its forwarding agency, but is charged with a statutory duty. The purpose of a criminal trial is not to support at all cost a theory, but to investigate the offence and to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused and the duty of the Public Prosecutor is to represent not the police but the State and her/his duty should be discharged by her/him fairly and fearlessly and with a full sense of responsibility that attaches to her/his position. There can be no manner of doubt that Parliament intended that Public Prosecutors should be free from the control of the police department. 16.3 The public prosecutor plays the following role at the investigation stage: (1) He appears in the Court and obtains arrest warrant against the accused. (2) He obtains search warrants from the Court for searching specific premises for collecting evidence. (3) He obtains police custody remand for custodial interrogation of the accused (section 167). (4) If an accused is not traceable, he initiates proceedings in the court for getting him declared a proclaimed offender (section 82) and, thereafter, for the confiscation of his movable and immovable assets (section 83); and (5) He records his advice in the police file regarding the viability/advisability of prosecution. 16.4 As stated above, the public prosecutor is vested with the primary responsibility to prosecute the cases in the Court. After the chargesheet is filed in the Court, the original case papers are handed over to him. The cognizance of the case is taken by the Courts under section 190 of the Code. The trial in India involves various stages. The first and foremost is the taking of cognizance of a case by the Court. The second step is to frame charges against the accused, if there is a prima facie case against him. The third step is to record the prosecution evidence. The fourth step is to record the statement of the accused (section 313 of the Code). The fifth step is to record the defence evidence. The sixth step is to hear the final arguments from both sides, and the last step is the pronouncement of judgment by the Court. The public prosecutor is the anchor man in all these stages. He has no authority to decide whether the case should be sent up for trial. His role is only advisory. However, once the case has been sent up for trial, it is for him to prosecute it successfully. 16.5 The public prosecutor has the authority to withdraw a case from trial under section 321 of the Code. Under the case law, he and he alone has the ultimate authority to withdraw a case from prosecution ( AIR 1983 SC 194 ). But the practice is that he receives instructions from the government and pursuant to those instructions, he withdraws the case from prosecution. Under the case law, he and he alone has the ultimate authority to withdraw a case from prosecution ( AIR 1983 SC 194 ). But the practice is that he receives instructions from the government and pursuant to those instructions, he withdraws the case from prosecution. The grounds of withdrawal could be many, including: (1) False implication of accused persons as a result of political and personal vendatta; (2) Inexpediency of the prosecution for the reasons of state and public policy; and (3) Adverse effects that the continuation of prosecution will bring on public interest in the light of changed situation. 16.6 While discharging this obligation again he is obliged to be fair to the community as a whole including the accused and involve himself in accordance with law at all the above stages and not according to instructions of the investigator. If the investigator seeks his opinion after the investigation is over, instead of giving the opinion mechanically, the public prosecutor is obliged to apply his mind to the facts of the case as the Magistrate or Court would have done while hearing discharge application or framing a charge so that genuine case goes to the Court and the cases not deserving trial may be shunted out; consequently saving important public time, money and energy. 16.7 It is for the public prosecutor to establish the guilt against the accused in the Court beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. The evidence is in three forms, namely, oral evidence (i.e. statements of witnesses), documentary evidence and circumstantial evidence. Forensic evidence also plays an important role in varied crimes. 16.8 In the criminal statutes, varied sentences are provided for different offences. The most serious offence is the crime of murder for which life imprisonment or death is provided. A death sentence is, however, to be awarded in the rarest of rare cases. There are certain statutes which provide for minimum imprisonment, but may exceed the minimum imprisonment so provided. After the Court has held the accused guilty, the defence counsel and the public prosecutor are called upon to argue on the quantum of punishment. The Courts in India generally believe in the individualisation of sentences. The age, educational background, social status and liabilities of the accused such as infant children, dependent wife and other factors are considered by the court before imposing a sentence. The Courts in India generally believe in the individualisation of sentences. The age, educational background, social status and liabilities of the accused such as infant children, dependent wife and other factors are considered by the court before imposing a sentence. The public prosecutor has to use his discretion in arguing for adequate punishment, keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above. He should exercise the discretion keeping in mind the gravity of the offence, and the facts and circumstances of the case. They are Court officers answerable only to the Courts and within the four corners of the fact of that particular case. They are free to take their own decision about the manner and the method in which they must be assisting the Court. 17. In Navinchandra Vishnuprasad Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and others (Criminal Misc. Application No.5903 of 2008 with Criminal Misc. Application No.5673 of 2008) one of us (G.R.Udhwani, J. ) made following observations on the role of the Public Prosecutor and the Court dealing with criminal cases. We may quote para 17 to 25 : “17. From what has been discussed hereinabove, it is crystal clear that the court below mechanically framed the charge without applying its mind to relevant documents. Not only that when urged by Bharatkumar Shantilal Sheth – petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No.5673 of 2008 for discharge in absence of the material against him, the trial court refused to discharge him on the ground that the prosecution was yet to lead the evidence and therefore the fact as to whether the petitioner who was the heir of original accused Bharatkumar Shantilal Sheth had played any role in the financial transaction with the bank cannot be determined at this stage. The trial court, thus, refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Such an order, viewed in the light of Section 239 of Cr.P.C. was manifestly illegal as the said provision obliges the learned Magistrate to consider the police report and the documents with it and make examination of the accused if required, give opportunity to the prosecution and the accused of being heard and then to consider as to whether the charge is groundless or not. The charge under Section 240 can be framed only after such consideration/examination and hearing. As discussed above, neither the complaint disclose any offence against the petitioners nor there was any accusation of forgery against accused. The charge under Section 240 can be framed only after such consideration/examination and hearing. As discussed above, neither the complaint disclose any offence against the petitioners nor there was any accusation of forgery against accused. Further, the complainant himself had made a statement which was included in the papers with the chargesheet that the petitioners were not involved in forgery or execution of a false documents at the time of obtaining a loan. These facts suggested a complete lack of evidence against the petitioners, and thus, the findings of the trial court that unless the evidence was led, issue raised by the petitioners was not capable of being address is misconceived. Such an erroneous and illegal approach to the matter, both by the court and the public prosecutor results into wastage of public time money and energy It is therefore necessary to examine the scheme of some relevant legal provisions of Cr.P.C. 18. The criminal proceedings begin with either filing of the complaint before the competent Magistrate or an FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. In case of an FIR u/s 154, after following necessary procedure as required by Sections 157 and 158, and after investigation, a report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. in the court of competent Magistrate is required to be filed. 19. The learned Magistrate is then required to deal with the matter for taking its cognizance under section 190 of Cr.P.C., and if it is a case upon complaint, he may or may not, as the case may be, examine the complainant and the witnesses if any, on oath and is required to follow other necessary procedure contemplated under section 200 of Cr.P.C., subject however to section 202 thereof. He is then obliged to consider the statements recorded by him under section 200 of the Cr.P.C., the result of the enquiry or investigation if any under section 202 and then to form an opinion as to whether there is no sufficient ground for proceeding and if he doesn’t find any such ground, shall dismiss the complaint u/s 203, with brief reasons. 20. Upon the Magistrate deciding to take cognizance, he may issue process and after following the procedure under sections 204, 207 and 208, either commit the case to the Court of Sessions under section 209 or proceed ahead with further process, as the case may be. 21. 20. Upon the Magistrate deciding to take cognizance, he may issue process and after following the procedure under sections 204, 207 and 208, either commit the case to the Court of Sessions under section 209 or proceed ahead with further process, as the case may be. 21. Insofar as trial by court of Sessions is concerned, the public prosecutor is under an obligation to open the case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt under section 226 of Cr.P.C. Under section 227, the learned judge is required to form an opinion, on the basis of record of the case and documents submitted there with, as also after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, for discharge or otherwise, of the accused. Thus conjoint reading of Sections 226 and 227 indicates that a complete application of mind to the facts and evidence on record is required before the decision as to discharge or otherwise of the accused is taken. If there is no material on record, the accused must be discharged, else, he may be charged with the offence as contemplated under section 228. 22. Insofar as trial by the Court of learned Magistrate is concerned, next important section is 239 of Cr.P.C. According to this provision, the competent Magistrate is obliged to consider the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and upon making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, if the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. 23. Thus, it is required to be appreciated that the purpose of Sections 203, 226, 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C. is to weed out undeserving cases and concentrate on cases deserving trial. This exercise if genuinely done would enable the Court to try the genuine suspect/accused, and in the process, save public time by avoiding cases from being tried in futility. It is, therefore, necessary for the competent court/Magistrate to religiously address themselves under the above provisions and consider the material made available to them before sending the case to trial. 24. This exercise if genuinely done would enable the Court to try the genuine suspect/accused, and in the process, save public time by avoiding cases from being tried in futility. It is, therefore, necessary for the competent court/Magistrate to religiously address themselves under the above provisions and consider the material made available to them before sending the case to trial. 24. At this stage it will be useful to refer to observations made by Honourable Supreme Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., [ (1999) 8 SCC 686 ]: “15 In case of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or IPC a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then has to examine the complainant and his witnesses; if any, to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass. Such examination is provided in order to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. The words 'sufficient ground’ used under Section 203 have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction.” 25. However, exercise of weeding out undeserving cases has to be cautiously done. The test is to peruse the case papers and without appreciating them or adding value to it, find out as to whether penal provisions are attracted. The courts should not venture to appreciate the evidence as it would have done after recording of the evidence in a fullfledged trial. The test under the above provision would not be as to whether after fullfledged trial there are chances of innocence of accused. The test is whether, on perusal of the evidence placed before the court before trial or at the stages referred to in various sections as above constitute an offence under relevant penal provisions, and for that the courts shall have to peruse the relevant law and find out whether the facts fit in the ingredients constituting an offence. The facts are required to be perused as they are.” 18. The facts are required to be perused as they are.” 18. Thus, if we summarise the role of Investigator, Prosecutor and the Court, it will be suffice to say that endeavour of the investigator, prosecutor and the court should be to find out the truth and truth only. Miscarriage of justice is caused when the person accused is presumed to be guilty from the inception i.e. filing of the complaint itself. This prejudice prevents all concerned to objectively apply mind to the facts and the law. In such circumstances ultimate casualty is the constitutional rights. We hope that all the above three agencies will henceforth piously discharge their duty while keeping in view the constitutional provisions and legal procedures rather than surmises and conjectures. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 21.04.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Third Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.65 of 2004 is quashed and set aside. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Fine, if any paid, shall be refunded to him. Farad of this judgment shall be served upon the concerned Jail authority forthwith. 20. Before parting with this judgment, it is necessary that a copy of this judgment and order be forwarded to the Director General of Police, State of Gujarat to look into the matter and keeping in mind the serious welldesigned lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, shall take an appropriate action by holding a departmental inquiry against the Investigating Officer and see that the innocent people are not roped in by the Investigating Officer to achieve conviction. Further, this is a fit a case where the appellant deserves to be awarded compensation. But, to avoid any further litigation against that order, we are refraining from awarding the compensation.