Raj Kishore Goel vs Additional District Judge and others

Hon''ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By means of this petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the challenge is to the order dated 03.01.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 277 of 1996 titled as State Vs. Raj Kishore Goel pertaining to Police Station Dalanwala, Dehradun.

The background facts are that deceased Ramanna Goel espoused with Raj Kishore Goel (love marriage) on 15.05.1987. Both were residents of Dehradun city itself. Ramanna Goel was blessed with a son named Navtesh Goel. She was in her matrimonial home for almost short of a decade. Ramanna Goel died in her matrimonial house on 04.08.1996. An FIR was lodged by her father Niranjan Sharma on the same day within three hours of the incident. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against Raj Kishore Goel for the offence u/s 306, 498-A IPC but the learned Sessions Judge, on perusal of the case diary and evidence available on record, levelled the charge of Section 498-A, 306 IPC and in alternative Section 302 IPC against the accused applicant.

The order of Sessions Judge for levelling the charge was challenged by accused Raj Kishore Goel by filing Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2001 before this Court, which allowed the revision on 20.07.2005 and set aside the order passed by learned Sessions Judge with a direction to frame fresh charges against accused in accordance with law. While adjudicating the said revision, this Court was of the view that it is the duty of the prosecution to take a stand whether it is a case of murder or abetment of suicide. The prosecution cannot say at the same time that it is a case of murder and in case of suicide, the accused abetted the commission of suicide. So this Court directed the learned Sessions Judge to frame charges afresh either for the offence u/s 306 IPC or 302 IPC. The matter was remitted to the trial court, which having heard learned counsel for the accused as well as DGC, has categorically expressed his view that it was a fit case for levelling the charge of Section 302, 498-A IPC.

Feeling aggrieved by this order, accused again has filed instant petition before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant has read all the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and has vociferously contended that there is clear cut distinction between abetment of suicide and murder. Deceased was found hanged in a closed room bolted from inside and her dead body was brought out after breaking the main door of room.

At the time of incident, accused was in a birthday party which was being organized at a fairly distant place in city itself along with his son Navtesh, who was 8-year old. On date of incident at about 5.00 p.m., Ramanna Goel went to beauty parlour, which was run by her elder sister, at Ashlay Hall situated at some distance from the place of incident. Statement of elder sister Meena Sharma divulged that Ramanna Goel began to weep no sooner did she come to her Parlour. She also narrated entire tale of atrocities and tyrannies committed upon her by accused (husband). However, she was not ready to lodge an FIR at that time and went back to matrimonial house for fetching her entire certificates but she never returned. All the witnesses i.e. Meena Sharma, her brother Amit Sharma and Sanjay Gaur, Advocate reached at the house of accused at about 07.15 p.m. apprehending some unpleasant event and knocked the door. The door could not be opened because it was bolted from inside. All the persons gave a push to the door which broken the bolt, so it was opened and the deceased was found hanging in the room.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned order has elaborately discussed the formidable evidence like ante-mortem injuries, which were found on body of deceased before asphyxia. This Court too is of the view that fate of the nature of trial cannot be left in the hands of the Investigating Officer alone.

By going through the case diary, the Additional Sessions Judge has expressed his view that on the formidable evidence available in the case diary the Investigating Officer has not submitted charge sheet under proper Sections, then he has powers to level charge against accused person, as he finds fit. Therewithal, Section 221 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:

221.Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed. (1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences.

So in view of the above provision, it was proper for the learned Sessions Judge to lay alternative charge of Section 302 IPC too. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Crl. MP No. 23051 of 2010 titled as Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs. State of Haryana has directed on 22.11.2010 that in such an offence, it is always desirable for the trial court to level alternative charge of Section 302 IPC. Needless to say, if such charge is not proved after the end of trial then it is always open for the trial court to convict the accused person for the offence of lesser gravity, that is to say, if charge of Section 302 IPC is levelled against the accused and eventually, it is not proved, then the course open for trial court is to acquit the accused from offence u/s 302 IPC and hold him guilty (if evidence so indicates) for the offence u/s 306 IPC. All the same, no charge was levelled against the applicant for the offence u/s 306 IPC.

In view of the above, the petition is without merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.