Ravi alias Kalu vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—Both the criminal revision petitions arise out of common order, as also common facts and law, hence the same are being decided by this common order.

The accused petitioners by filing instant criminal revision petitions have challenged the order dated 2-12-2006 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar (for short ''trial Court'') passed in Criminal Case No. 87/2005 by which it framed charges against them for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC.

In brief facts of the case are that Smt. Kamla submitted a written report on 16-8-2004 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Laxmangarh District Sikar mentioning therein that on 7-8-2004 her daughter Savita had died on suspicious condition, upon which a report of suicide was registered but she is not believing that her daughter had died due to suicide. She further stated in the report that the neighbours of the locality told her that her daughter had burnt but that was not so serious. She also mentioned in the written report that she had doubt in conducting post-mortem by the doctor of the dead body of her daughter Savita and prayed for conducting a detailed enquiry in the matter.

On the basis of this written report, on 7-8-2004, statements of Bal Mukund and Sanjay Kumar (father and cousin of deceased Savita) were recorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikar.

Father of deceased lodged an FIR on 1-9-2004 regarding death of his daughter (since deceased) by burning.

Police after investigation submitted challan before the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Laxmangarh, Sikar, who committed the case to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Sikar. Thereafter the matter was transferred to the trial Court.

The trial Court after hearing both the parties framed charges against the accused petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC vide order-dated 2-12-2006.

The accused petitioners being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 2-12-2006 of framing charges have preferred instant criminal petitions before this Court.

Mr. A.K. Gupta assisted by Mr. Vijayant Nirwan as also Mr. M.M. Ranjan, appearing on behalf of accused petitioners submits that in the instant case the complainant has lodged FIR after a considerable delay. The prosecution has also failed to explain in not lodging the report within the reasonable time. Both the learned Counsel submit that trial Court has not gone through the provisions of Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC, which runs as under:

498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

The ingredients of this section runs as under:

A woman was married;

She was subjected to cruelty;

Such cruelty consisted or;

(a) any conduct as was likely to drive such woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health mental physical;

(b) harm of such woman with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or any other of her relation to meet the unlawful demands.

304-B - Dowry death - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called ''dowry death'' and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

Both the counsel appearing on behalf of accused petitioners submit that there was nothing on record to frame charge against the accused petitioners. Before framing charge, the trial Court ought to have considered that soon before her death, the woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Here in the instant case nothing of this sort has been done. But the trial Court at the time of charge arguments has neither considered this fact nor prosecution has proved the same against the accused petitioners.

There is nothing in the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Laxmangarh as also in the statements of prosecution witnesses to show that anything such as demand of dowry, abetment etc. has been made by any of the accused petitioners. The aforesaid report and statements even do not disclose any commission of offence by the accused petitioners.

Mr. Gupta submits that accused petitioner Ganesh had opened a shop at Nasik long back and since then he is living there. No demand of dowry has been made by the accused petitioners before, after and at the time of marriage. The prosecution has not produced any prima facie evidence against the petitioner at the time of framing of charges. Thus, the trial Court has erred in framing charge against the accused petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

Mr. Ranjan, submits that accused petitioner Ravi alias Kalu is not a family member of the deceased, as such trial Court has erred in raising presumption for the afore-mentioned offences against accused petitioner Ravi alias Kalu.

In support of their cases, reliance has been placed upon following Judgments:

Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra,

Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab,

Satvir Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and

Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar and Another,

Per-contra Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sushil Sharma vehemently controverted the aforesaid arguments and submit that trial Court was right in framing charges for the aforesaid offences against the accused petitioners.

Mr. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor, first of all has drawn attention of the Court upon the provisions of Sections 113-A and 113-B, Indian Evidence Act, which run as under:

113-A - Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman - When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

113-B - Presumption as to dowry death - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand of dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

Mr. Sandhu further drawn attention of the Court that in the instant case deceased Savita had died in her in-laws house just after 16 months from the date of solemnization of marriage. Prima facie the material collected by the Investigating Agency was sufficient to frame charges against the accused petitioners for the aforementioned offences and it is not the stage where the charge framed by the trial Court is set-aside. Here in the instant case the trial Court has framed charges against the accused petitioners, after properly examination of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and material collected during the course of investigation.

As per provisions of Section 216, Cr.P.C. any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

19 Mr. Sandhu, has drawn attention of this Court towards provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 216, Cr.P.C. which runs as under:

Court may alter charge (1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

Mr. Sandhu, in support of his case has placed reliance upon a case of Ishwarchand Amichand Govadia and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, , the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 216--Addition of charge relating to dowry death (Section 304-B, IPC) during trial--Death certificate already filed indicating probable cause of death to be cardio-respiratory failure due to acute respiratory failure--Production of another death certificate by prosecution which was issued by same doctor indicating a different cause of death--Objection raised against, by accused--Matter relating to production of subsequent certificate kept in abeyance to be decided after examination of doctor--However, on the same date, trial Court allowing application filed for addition of charge u/s 304-B--Presence of certain chemicals in viscera was noted by trial Court--Effect of, was to be considered in the background of both the certificates, in case the latter certificate was taken on record. Hence, held, it would be proper for trial Court to defer the question of framing charge u/s 304-B after examination of the doctor and relevance of the subsequent certificate and its acceptability--Penal Code, 1986, Section 304-B--Dowry Death.

Mr. Sandhu, has further placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Om Wati and Another Vs. State, through Delhi Admn. and Others, is relevant, which is reproduced hereinbelow:

We allow this appeal by setting aside the order of the High Court and upholding the order of the trial Court. We would again remind the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protracting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by haying resort to uncalled for and unjustified litigation under the clock of technicalities of law.

(Underlined by me)

I have heard learned Counsel for respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material available on record including the judgments cited by both the respective counsel.

A bare perusal of the facts of the case, statements of prosecution witnesses recorded by the Investigating Agency as also judgment cited by Public Prosecutor clearly reveal that trial Court was right in framing the charges against the accused petitioners for the aforementioned offences. Provisions of Section 216, Cr.P.C. confers powers upon all Courts to alter or add to any charge framed earlier at any time before judgment is pronounced and the provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 216 prescribes the procedure which is to be followed by the trial Court after addition or alteration of the charges. The provisions of aforesaid section invites the Court with all comprehensive powers of remedying defects, whether they arise out of framing of charges or non framing of charges and whether they are discovered at the inception of the trial or at any subsequent stage of it prior to the pronouncement of the judgment.

Section 304-B, IPC and Section 113-B Indian Evidence Act has been introduced with a view to corroborate the increasing menace of dowry deaths.

The judgments cited by both the counsel appearing for the accused petitioners and the case in hand are entirely different.

I am of the considered view that the trial Court was right in passing the order dated 2-12-2006 of framing charges against the accused petitioners for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC and it has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the same. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the impugned order dated 2-12-2006.

In the result, both the revision petitions are devoid of merit and stands rejected.

The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send the record of the case back forthwith to the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial in accordance with law.