Pawan Singh and Others vs State

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Instant petition has been filed u/s 397 read with Section 401, CrPC by accused assailing order dt.04/04/07 in Sess. Case No. 1/07 (27/06) whereby Addl. Sess. Judge (Fast track) No. 3, Khetri (Jhunjhunu) framed charges u/s 498A, 304B, 406 & 201, IPC against accused petitioners.

Initially, on a report lodged on 14/11/05 at the behest of Preetam Singh S/o Bhur Singh, brother of deceased, FIR-370/05 was registeredatPoliceStationKhetri (Jhunjhunu). Marriage of her sister took place on 02/03/99 with one of petitioners (Pavan Kumar) and out of their wedlock there are two children. Allegations made inter-alia in the report, are that since petitioners were demanding dowry and harassing the deceased, she was left by him at her parent''s house on various occasions, and taken back to her matrimonial home where she died on 13/11/05. During investigation, statements were recorded of members of her parental family, particularly Surgyan Singh, Mahadev Soingh, Kalu Singh, Hanuman Prasad, Bhanwar Singh, & Pritam Singh u/s 161, CrPC, wherein all have specifically named accused petitioners and alleged of their participation in commission of offences. The police filed challan against three accused petitioners for offences (supra) and after hearing them, charges were framed vide order dt. 04/04/07.

Counsel for petitioners submits that there is no prima facie material on record, which may connect petitioners for their participation in commission of offence and even during last six months from the date of occurrence (13/11/05) there is no evidence on record about the deceased being harassed for the demand of dowry. Counsel further submits that petitioner-Pavan Kumar (husband of deceased) is in defence service and was not there at the time of incident and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are old aged parents of petitioner No. 1, not residing at the place where the incident has taken place.

It is trite that at the time of framing the charge, the truth, veracity & effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposed to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Even, at the time of framing the charge, it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an offence and involvement of the charged persons; and charge can be framed, if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime as against certainty.

In State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari and Others, , Apex Court observed ad infra:

At the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider, whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. (para 4)

In Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI, , Apex Court observed ad infra:

At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.

Charge may although be directed to be framed when there exists a strong suspicion but it is also trite that the court must come to a prima facie finding that there exists some materials therefore or held to be sufficient for framing charge.

In instant case, as regards statements - reference whereof has been made by learned trial Judge in the order framing charges impugned, all of witnesses examined u/s 161, CrPC all have specifically named accused petitioners and alleged of the dowry being demanded by them but also having harassed the deceased for the dowry while beating her, which prima facie shows their involvement in commission of offences alleged in the FIR impugned, for which learned trial Judge while framing of the charges impugned found strong suspicion and the defence which the petitioners have put forth before this Court, can always be considered in course of their defence during trial; and was not required to be examined at this stage.

This Court has gone through the impugned order and does not find any manifest error in the order impugned, which may warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Consequently, revision petition is hereby dismissed.