Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1436 (MP)

SANJAY MEHRA v. STATE OF M. P.

2011-12-16

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT : 1. This revision is directed on behalf of the applicants/accused being aggrieved by the order dated 3-1-2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in S. T. No. 314/2010 framing the charge against each of the them for the offence punishable under sections 304-B, 302, 306 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on receiving the information at P. S. Kotwali, Hoshangabad on 23-10-2009 from informer Dilip Mehra regarding unnatural death of Deepa wife of applicant No. 1 while daughter-in-law of applicant No. 2 by hanging, on inquest intimation No. 110/09 under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code was registered. In the course of its inquiry after preparing the Panchnama of dead body, the same was sent to hospital for its post-mortem, the same was carried out in which it was revealed that she died by mode of asphyxia by hanging. In subsequent inquiry of merg interrogatory statements of witnesses belonging to the parental family and other relatives of the deceased were recorded, in which it was revealed that the deceased got married with applicant No. 1 on 27-1-2008, as per rite and rituals of the community. But subsequent to such marriage near about after five months the deceased on account of demand of ornaments and cash in dowry was subjected to harassment and cruelty in her matrimonial home by the applicant. Pursuant to such act of the applicants the deceased was abetted and proceeded to commit suicide and committed the same by hanging. As the alleged suicide was committed within seven years from the date of her marriage, hence in the above mentioned circumstances a Crime No. 742/10 for the offence of section 304-B, 498 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the applicants. In its investigation interrogatory statements of witnesses were recorded, the applicants were arrested and on completion of investigation they were charge-sheeted for the offence of sections 304-B, 306, 4908-A and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. After committing the case to the Sessions Court on evaluation of charge- sheet the charge of offence punishable under sections 304-B, 302, 306 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code were framed against the applicants. They abjured the guilt and being dissatisfied with such order have come to this Court with a prayer to discharge them from the abovementioned charges. 4. After committing the case to the Sessions Court on evaluation of charge- sheet the charge of offence punishable under sections 304-B, 302, 306 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code were framed against the applicants. They abjured the guilt and being dissatisfied with such order have come to this Court with a prayer to discharge them from the abovementioned charges. 4. Shri Amit Dubey learned counsel of the applicants' after taking me through the copy of the charge-sheet along with the impugned order and framed charges without assailing the charge of sections 304-B, 306 and 498- A of Indian Penal Code framed by the trial Court has made his limited submission to discharge the applicant from the charge of section 302 of Indian Penal Code. In this regard by referring the FIR as well as interrogatory statements of all the witnesses along with other papers he said that even on taking into consideration the face value of the same as accepted in its entirety even the ingredients of offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code are not made out against any of the applicants and prayed to discharge them from the charge of such offence by allowing this revision.. 5. On the other hand Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned State counsel by justifying the impugned order and charges framed against the applicants argued that the same being inconsonance with the evidence available in the charge-sheet does not require any interference at this stage. In continuation, he said that trial Court had a right to frame the alternate or probable charge in the available factual matrix of the case and in such premises the impugned order could be held to be faulted. However, in response of some query he fairly conceded that on perusing the FIR as well as interrogatory statements of the witnesses the ingredients of offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code are not made out against any of the applicants even for framing the charge of such section. So far the charge of other sections are concerned he said that there was sufficient material on record and till this extent the trial Court has not committed any error in framing such charges. 6. Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view their arguments I have carefully gone through the copy of the entire charge-sheet as well as the impugned order along with framed charges. 7. 6. Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view their arguments I have carefully gone through the copy of the entire charge-sheet as well as the impugned order along with framed charges. 7. On going through the merg intimation dated 23-10-2009, FIR dated 28-8-2010, post-mortem report of the deceased, and interrogatory statements of the witnesses namely, Devendra Mehra, Ku. Simpi Mehra, Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, Dinesh Sharma, Smt. Malti Malviya and Ashok Yadav and also the other with the charge-sheet, I have not found any factual matrix showing that any of the applicants during lifetime of the deceased Deepa caused her any injury causing her death. In such premises the death of said deceased Deepa could not be said to be covered under the terminology of culpable homicide defined under section 299 of Indian Penal Code and in such premises, the impugned case could not be said to be a case covered under any of the part of section 300 of Indian Penal Code either culpable homicide amount to murder or culpable homicide of not amounting to murder. Although aforesaid interrogated witnesses of parental family as well as the relatives of the deceased have categorically stated that deceased Deepa got married with the applicant No. 1 on 27-1-2008 and subsequent to marriage after some time on account of demand of dowry she was subjected to harassment and cruelty in her matrimonial home by the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased/ the applicants and pursuant to such instigation and abetment she committed suicide within seven years of her marriage. It also appeared from the case diary statement that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment given by the applicants. In such premises, I am of the considered view that the ingredients to frame the charge of sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code are prima facie available in the charge-sheet but for framing the charge of section 302 of Indian Penal Code there was no material even for framing such charge as alternative. So it is held that the charge of section 302 of Indian Penal Code framed by the trial Court against the applicants is contrary to the police report filed under section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code as well as the evidence collected by the investigating agency in the matter. 8. So it is held that the charge of section 302 of Indian Penal Code framed by the trial Court against the applicants is contrary to the police report filed under section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code as well as the evidence collected by the investigating agency in the matter. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is found to be perverse till the extent of framing the charge of section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants while the same is found to be in accordance with law for framing the charge of section 304-B in alternate sections 306 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code. 9. Therefore, the impugned order for framing the charge under section 304-B in alternate 306 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code against the applicants is hereby affirmed while by allowing this revision in part the charge framed for the offence of section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants is hereby quashed. Till this extent the impugned order of framing the charge is modified. 10. Revision is allowed in part as indicated above.