Ramchandra Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard.

This revision has been preferred u/s 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Sessions Trial No. 37/2007 whereby additional/alternate charge u/s 302 or 302/34 has been framed against the petitioners. Relief claimed in this revision is to set aside the additional/alternate charge framed on 16.04.2014 as mentioned above.

As per prosecution story, marriage of Aneeta alias Annu was solemnized in the month of April, 2002, with petitioner No. 1 within seven years from the date of incident. On the fateful night of 12.06.2006, she swallowed some poisonous substance and thereby committed suicide because she was subjected to cruelty and as she was beaten by the petitioners for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Marg No. 41/2006 by police Dehat District Bhind was registered and then ultimately after investigation crime was registered. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed on 20.12.2006. Case was committed and thereafter charges were framed against the petitioners under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC.

It is submitted by Shri Bohre, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that prior to passing of the impugned order charges under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC were framed against the petitioner and during trial evidence of Dr. Rakesh Upadhyaya (PW-1), Dr. JPS Kushwah (PW-2), Munnilal (PW-3), Rajaram Singh (PW-4), Jamuna Devi (PW-5), D.J. Rai, the then SHO, Bhind (PW-6), Harendra (PW-7), Head Constable Gambheer Singh (PW-8), M. Tirki (PW-11), Kavildas (PW-12), Jasrath (PW-13) were recorded. Thereafter, all of a sudden, on 16.04.2014 additional charge u/s 302 or 302/34 was framed against each of the accused/petitioners in view of the directions issued by Hon''ble the Supreme Court.

In the case in hand, learned trial court, in view of the directions issued by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir @ Raju and Another Vs. State of Haryana, and considering itself to be bound by the same added the charge u/s 302 or 302/34 of IPC to one already framed against the petitioners. While doing so, learned trial court simply placed reliance upon Section 216 of Cr.P.C. which empowers the court add or alter the charge at any stage.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini and Others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), has observed as under:

"The question whether it is murder punishable u/s 302 IPC or a dowry death punishable u/s 304B IPC depends upon the fact situation and the evidence in the case. If there is evidence whether direct or circumstantial to prima facie support a charge u/s 302 IPC the trial court can and indeed ought to frame a charge of murder punishable u/s 302 IPC, which would then be the main charge and not an alternative charge as is erroneously assumed in some quarters. If the main charge of murder is not proved against the accused at the trial, the Court can look into the evidence to determine whether the alternative charge of dowry death punishable u/s 304B is established. The ingredients constituting the two offences are different, thereby demanding appreciation of evidence from the perspective relevant to such ingredients. The trial Court in that view of the matter acted mechanically for it framed an additional charge u/s 302 without adverting to the evidence adduced in the case and simply on the basis of the direction issued in Rajbir''s case (supra). The High Court no doubt made a half hearted attempt to justify the framing of the charge independent of the directions in Rajbir''s case (supra), but it would have been more appropriate to remit the matter back to the trial Court for fresh orders rather than lending support to it in the manner done by the High Court."

On perusal of evidence of Rajaram Singh (PW-4) who is the father and Jamuna Devi (PW-5) who is the mother of deceased, it is clear that only allegations were made against the petitioner that Aneeta (since deceased) was subjected to cruelty and many a times she was beaten by the petitioners on account non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

After taking into consideration the entire evidence of 13 witnesses, prima facie, there is no evidence at all for framing the charge u/s 302 or 302/34 of IPC against the petitioners. Thus, it is clear that the learned trial court has framed the charge u/s 302 or 302/34 of IPC mechanically only because that there are directions issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajbeer (supra). Hence, revision stands allowed. Impugned order dated 16.04.2014 and also the additional charge framed u/s 302 or 302/34 against the petitioners is hereby set aside and the petitioners are discharged from the offence only u/s 302 or 302/34 of IPC. Learned Trial Court is directed to continue the trial and after taking into consideration the evidence, the case be decided in accordance with law on the basis of charges framed against the petitioners under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC.