Sattar Mohd @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

By the instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., accused-petitioners have challenged order dated 28th of March,

2018, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Merta, (for short, ‘learned trial Court’), framing charge against them under Section 201 IPC.  Â

Learned trial Court, by the order impugned, has framed charge for offence under Sections 306 and 201 IPC against main accused Kushal, whereas

the petitioners are charged for offence under Section 201 IPC.

Facts, in brief, are that sister of second petitioner Rafiq was married to main accused Kushal and during subsistence of matrimony she died unnatural

death on 16th of March, 2014. After her death, all the petitioners participated in her burial and as per Muslim rituals she was buried on the same

day. Subsequently, second petitioner having suspicion over the death of his sister, Khurshida Bano, lodged FIR at Police Station Thawla, District

Nagaur, which was registered as FIR No.42/2014.   Upon completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against all the petitioners

and main accused Kushal.    With advent of time, the case was committed to learned trial Court and the learned trial Court by the order

impugned framed charge for offence under Section 306 and 201 IPC against main accused Kushal but against petitioners under Section 201 IPC.Â

It is contended by learned counsel that learned trial Court has committed grave and serious error in framing charge against petitioners in respect of

causing disappearance of evidence of offence inasmuch as mere participation of the petitioners in burial cannot constitute such an offence.  It is

also argued by learned counsel that the moment petitioners came to know about unnatural death of deceased Khurshida Bano, FIR was lodged at their

behest on the very next day attributing allegations against main accused Kushal. It is also argued by learned counsel that learned trial Court, while

framing charge under Section 201 IPC, has not at all cared to examine the material available on record much less recording a definite finding that they

were responsible for causing disappearance of the evidence of offence knowingly or having reason to believe that the offence was committed by

other accused.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the revision petition.   It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that learned trial

Court has taken note of all the materials available on record and thereafter framed charge under Section 201 IPC against the petitioners. Â

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar, perused the impugned order and materials available on record.

Upon perusal of materials available on record and in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in prima facie charge causing

disappearance of evidence of the crime appears to be not founded on grave suspicion against the petitoners.  Though the learned trial Court has

passed a detailed order but a very vital fact, that they were aggrieved of unnatural death of deceased and that is why at their behest FIR was lodged,

has not been taken into consideration.

It is needless to observe here that all the petitioners are relatives or family members of the deceased, and therefore, there appears to be no reason to

believe that they were involved in destroying the evidence of the offence. Â

In view thereof, the impugned order passed by learned trial Court framing charge under Section 201 IPC qua the petitioners is quashed and set aside

and the matter is remitted back to decide the issue of framing charge against them afresh, strictly in accordance with law.