Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 969 (MP)

Rajendra Soni v. State Of M. P.

2011-08-19

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2011
Judgment ( 1. ) THE applicants-accused have directed this revision under section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order dated 17-6-2011 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna framing the charges against them for the offence of section 306 or in alternate 302/34 of Indian Penal Code along with the offence of section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In addition to it the charge of section 498-A of Indian Penal Code were also framed against the applicant Nos.1 to 5. ( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on unnatural death of Sangita Soni the wife of applicant No. 1 Rajendra Soni due to burned injuries a inquest information was initially registered at P. S. Lordganj Jabalpur on sending the same, it was reregistered at P. S. Kothi, District Satna. In it's inquiry on recording the statements of persons belonging to the parental family of the deceased namely Kailash Chandra Soni, Father, Premlal Soni uncle, Dharmendra Soni, brother Smt. Sandhya Soni, mother, Aman Soni, son and Nidhi Soni daughter of the deceased it was revealed that subsequent to marriage, on account of demand of dowry the deceased was remained under the cruel treatment of the applicants. In continuation of if on 2-3-2010 at about 3.30 in the Noon the applicants beaten the deceased and thereafter by pouring the kerosene on her set fire, resultantly, she sustained serious injuries on her person. On which she was taken to Birla Hospital Satna from where she was shifted to M. H. Hospital Jabalpur for further treatment where during the course of treatment she succumbed to such injuries. Under such circumstances an offence under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against all the applicants. On completion of investigation the applicants were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under sections 302, 498-A and 34 of Indian Penal Code. After committing the case to the Sessions Court taking into consideration the papers submitted with the charge sheet on framing the charges of the offence mentioned above against the applicants, they have come forward to this Court with this revision for setting aside and quashment of the charges. ( 3. After committing the case to the Sessions Court taking into consideration the papers submitted with the charge sheet on framing the charges of the offence mentioned above against the applicants, they have come forward to this Court with this revision for setting aside and quashment of the charges. ( 3. ) WHILE arguing the case on the question of admission Shri Vikalp Soni, learned counsel for the applicant by referring the papers of charge sheet along with the impugned order said that according to initial MLC report of the deceased prepared at Birla Hospital, Satna the smell of kerosene was not found on the person of the deceased hence mere on interrogatory statements of the witnesses alleging the applicants after pouring the kerosene set fire on the deceased the alleged charges could not have been framed against them. In continuation he said that in the interrogatory statements of independent witnesses none of them have stated any incriminating thing against any of the applicant. Thus, mere on the basis interrogatory statements of the person belonging to the parental family of the deceased the alleged charges could not be framed. He also argued that even on taking into considering the face value of charge sheet no alleged offence are made out against any of the applicant. Besides this he also said that even on recording two different dying declaration of the deceased in any of them she has not stated any incriminating thing against any of the applicants. With these submissions and by placing the reliance on a case law of M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh and another reported in AIR 2001 SC 3014 , he prayed for quashing the impugned charges by allowing this revision. ( 4. ) ON the other hand by responding the aforesaid arguments learned P. L. Shri Thakur by justifying the impugned order framing the charges against the applicants said that same are framed in consonance with the evidence collected by the investigation agency and submitted before the Court and whatsoever arguments has been advanced by the applicants' counsel that may be good defence at the trial but at the stage of charge in view of sufficient prima-facie evidence the same are not helping to any of the applicant and prayed for dismissal of this revision. ( 5. ( 5. ) HAVING heard after perusing the papers of charge sheet including the FIR and interrogatory statements of the persons belonging to parental family of the deceased, have found sufficient prima-facie circumstances against the applicants for framing the abovementioned charges. Therefore, the impugned order does not required any interference at this stage. ( 6. ) IT is settled proposition of law that on face value of the evidence, collected by the investigating agency, if prima-facie ingredients of any of the offence defined under the Indian Penal Code or any other enactment are made out then there is no option with the Court except to frame the charge against the accused. As such at the stage of framing the charge the court has not to decide the question whether the accused shall be convicted or acquitted. ( 7. ) SO far the case law in the matter of M. Krishnan (supra) cited by the applicants' counsel is concerned, in such case it was held by the Apex Court that the criminal proceeding could be quashed under the inherent powers of section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code at the initial stage where uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or of the complaint and the evidence relied in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused, or the allegations stated in them are so absurd and inherently improper, on which no prudent person could have reached a just conclusion that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused or where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any provisions of the Code or in any other statute enacted for the institution and continuance of the criminal proceedings or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly instituted mala fidely and maliciously with the ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. ( 8. ) IN view of aforesaid principle of the cited case on examining the present case, it is apparent that no such situations or any of them are available in the matter insisting the Court to quash the charges framed against the applicants. Therefore, the cited case is not helping to the applicants. ( 9. ( 8. ) IN view of aforesaid principle of the cited case on examining the present case, it is apparent that no such situations or any of them are available in the matter insisting the Court to quash the charges framed against the applicants. Therefore, the cited case is not helping to the applicants. ( 9. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any error, illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order of the trial court framing the aforesaid charge against the applicants for holding the trial. Consequently this revision being devoid of any merits is dismissed at the initial stage of admission. ( 10. ) IN view of dismissal of the revision IA No. 14028/11, an application for grant of stay does not require any further consideration, hence the same is also dismissed. The revision petition is dismissed, as indicated above. Revision dismissed.