Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 752 (RAJ)

Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2003-05-14

H.R.PANWAR

body2003
Honble PANWAR, J.–This revision petition under section 397 read with Section 401 is directed against the impugned order dated 13.2.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jodhpur (for short, the trial Court), whereby the trial court famed charges against the petitioners for the offence under sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision, in succinct, are that on 18.9.02, Smt. Mamta Soni was found lying unconscious in train No. 200 Down in Jaipur-Bikaner Coach. She was taken to the Government Hospital, Nagaur, where she died during treatment. During inquiry under Section 174, Cr.P.C., a copy containing suicidal note in four/five pages, written by the deceased Smt. Mamta, was found in the bag of deceased Smt. mamta, was recovered wherein she had mentioned that she was being harassed by her in-laws for dowry and was subjected to man-handling off and on. After investigation, the Railway Police filed the challan against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC, offences being triable by Court of Sessions and, therefore, case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur,who further transferred it to the trial court for trial. The learned trial Court, after consideration of material on record and upon hearing, framed charges against the accused- petitioner, as noticed above. Hence this revision petition. (3). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also gone-though the order impugned. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suicidal note is of the date prior to one month from the date of the incident, therefore, the deceased could not be expected to have fore-seen her death and keep that suicidal note with her, it cannot be said even prima facie that the said suicidal note was in the hand-writing of the deceased; and it cannot be said that she was subjected to cruelty or harassed soon before her death. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order impugned passed by the learned trial court and submitted that from the material on record, it is prima facie established that the deceased was being harassed and mal-treated for want of dowry; her death was caused/occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and in a suspicious condition within seven years from the date of her marriage and the suicidal note in this regard makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners and as such no interference is called for in the order impugned. (5). It is settled law that at the stage of passing order in terms of section 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to peruse the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is any sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and if after such consideration, the court is of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the Court may frame a charge against the accused. (6). In Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal (1), the Honble Supreme Court held as under:- ``If the Trial Court decides to frame a charge, there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the Trial Judge has formed the opinion, upon considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. It was further held that there is no legal requirement that the Trial Court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened Trial Courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the Court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. (7). In State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh (2), the Honble Supreme Court observed as under:- ``Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that the beginning and the initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weight in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding the matter u/Sec. 227 or 228 of the Code. At that stage the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if thee is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (8). In Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia vs. Intelligence Officer, narcotic Control Bureau (3), the Honble Supreme Court observed as under:- ``It is settled law that at the stage of framing charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. If on the basis of materials on record the Court could come to the conclusion that the accused would have committed the offence, the Court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed to the trial. (9). In State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thmappa (4), the Supreme Court held that if on the basis of the material on record the Court comes to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case of framing of charge exists. To plut it differently if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame the charge, though for confession, conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of material on record cannot be gone into. To plut it differently if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame the charge, though for confession, conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of material on record cannot be gone into. The material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. (10). In Om Wati (Smt.) & Anr. vs. State through Delhi Administration & Ors. (5), the Apex Court observed that it is the statutory obligation of the High Court 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. Self-restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice staring the court in the face. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protracting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal case by having resort to uncalled for an unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law. (11). In Stree Atyacher Virodhi Parishad vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and Another (6), the Honble Supreme Court has observed that Court should be loth in interfering at the stage of framing of charge against the accused. Self restraint on the part of the High Court should be the real unless there is glaring injustice. (12). In Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors. (7), the Honble Supreme Court observed as under:- ``At the initial stage of framing of charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence. The Court has, therefore, to consider the question of framing the charges on general considerations of the material placed before it by the investigating agency. At this stage, the truth, veracity and effect of the judgment which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding an accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge. At this stage, the truth, veracity and effect of the judgment which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding an accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge. Even on the basis of a strong suspicion founded on materials before it, the Court can form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in that event be justified in framing the charges against the accused in respect of the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by them. (13). In State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj (8), the Honble Supreme Court held that the law on the subject is now well settled as pointed out in Niranjan Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja (9), that at sections 227 and 228 stage, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge, the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is a ground of presuming that the accused has committed the offence of that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (14). In State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi & Ors. (10), the Honble Supreme Court held that the legal positions well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge, the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 seeking for quashing of charge framed against them the court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court, charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such a order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused, the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior Court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record, should not be entertained. (15). In Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (11), the Honble Supreme Court held as under:- ``The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and caused manner. While exercising such power, the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional power could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. (16). In view of the above settled legal principles, it is clear that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to meticulously examine and marshal the material available on record as to whether there is sufficient material against the accused which would ultimately result in conviction. The Court is prima facie required to consider whether there is sufficient material against the accused to presume the commission of the offence. The Court is prima facie required to consider whether there is sufficient material against the accused to presume the commission of the offence. Even strong suspicion about commission of offence is sufficient for framing the charge, the guilt for innocence of the accused has to be determined at the time of conclusion of trial after evidence is adduced and not at the stage of framing of the charge and, therefore, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to undertake an elaborate enquiry for the purpose of sifting and weighing the material. (17). In the instant case, from the material on record and suicidal note, it prima facie shows that the marriage of deceased with accused Damodar Soni was solemnized on 4.2.1999 within seven years of her death otherwise under normal circumstances. it further reveals that after few days of marriage, deceased was subjected to harassment for want of adequate dowry. She was turned out from matrimonial home on 21.7.2002 and after return to in-laws house, she was again turned out from matrimonial home on 14.8.2002 on account of bringing inadequate dowry. Suicidal note, no being analysed by F.S.L. was found to have been written by the deceased herself. Statement of Smt. Leela Devi, who is wife of husbands elder brother (Jethani) stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the deceased committed suicide because there was persistent demand of dowry by accused-petitioners. (18). From the aforesaid settled legal proposition and on the basis of the prima facie evidence available on record against the petitioners, the learned trial court was justified in arriving at the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for framing the charges for the aforesaid offences. The order impugned odes not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity. No case for interference is made out. (19). Consequently, the revision petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.