Raghuveer vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Subhash Kakade, J.—This revision under Section 397/ 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 16.01.2014, passed in Sessions Trial No. 255/2013, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, District Raisen, by which the learned trial Court framed charges punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and in the alternative 302 and 294 IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that on 03.08.2013 an FIR has been lodged in which it is stated that the deceased Shivwati has succumbed to death by eating poisonous substance. Upon investigation it was further revealed that the applicant got married to the deceased 15 years ago and had four children from the marriage wedlock. For the past one year, the applicant used to manhandle the deceased, being aggrieved by which the deceased committed suicide by eating poisonous substance.

After lodging the FIR, challan was filed against the applicant, hence, the accused was charge-sheeted. The learned Additional Sessions, Begumganj, District Raisen vide impugned order leveled charges against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and in the alternative 302 and 294 IPC, against which this revision is being filed.

Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there is no instigation or abetment on the part of the applicant. The deceased was married to the applicant for more than 15 years, thus, presumption under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act is not attracted. The framing of charge under Section 302 of IPC is forcefully challenged on the grounds that in the absence of any direct or indirect evidence to attract an offence under Section 302 of IPC had led to travesty of justice. The fact that the deceased has left no suicide note or dying declaration further points towards innocence of the applicant.

Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the contention as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and prays for dismissal of this revision.

Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and after perusal of the record as well as the case diary prima-facie carefully, this revision deserves to be dismissed as the applicant found involved in commission the aforementioned offence.

At the stage of framing charge the Court cannot apply its judicial mind for the consideration whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. At this stage the Court will consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of the charge or not.

The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding, the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 228 of Cr.P.C. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon material before the Court, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence is lawful, hence, ruling cited by learned counsel for the applicant havint no use to decide the case in hand.

The question that whether just before the death Shivwati was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and whether the applicant abetted Shivwati Bai to commit the suicide are of such nature that can be decided only after recording of the evidence, at this stage on the available evidence nothing can be decided in favour or against the applicant. To decide these questions statement of Kamal Singh and Munni Bai, father-mother of the deceased and other witnesses are required to be recorded after giving lawful opportunity to the defence.

In this case death of wife Shivwati has taken place in her matrimonial house situated at Village Bhanpur Garhi, therefore, the onus how the death of the wife has taken place in that house, under what circumstances can be decided only after recording of evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence.

With respect to framing of the alternative charge of Section 302, IPC it is clear that under the provisions of Section 221 of the Code an exception to Section 228 of the Code it can be applied in a cases in which from the evidence led by the prosecution it is doubtful which of several offences have been committed by the accused but it does not means that the case of the prosecution is baseless.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the applicant. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by way of this Revision petition against framing of charge.

The revision is dismissed summarily.