Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1468 (MP)

Swati Sikarwar v. State of M. P.

2013-11-27

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. 1. Since all the revision petitions are related with the same crime, therefore, they are hereby decided by this common order. Heard on admission. 2. The applicants have challenged the order dated 11.9.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No. 521/2013, whereby the charges for offence punishable under sections 498A, 302 or 302 read with section 34 or 304B or 306 of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed. 3. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 7.6.2013, the deceased Poonam was found dead in her room. It was found that she sustained some injuries and it was possible that she was hanged by someone or she committed suicide. The glass of almirah in the room was broken and it was alleged by the witnesses that she was kept in a locked room. During the investigation, the parents and relatives of the deceased have alleged about harassment to the deceased relating to dowry demand etc. 4. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, one has to remember the golden yardstick relating to framing of charges that if no rebuttal has been done by the defence and evidence collected by the prosecution is considered as it is then, if there is any possibility of conviction for a particular crime then, charges for that crime shall be framed. If it is a case of 50-50% possibility, still the charges shall be framed. In this particular case, looking to the injuries of the deceased, it is possible that her death was homicidal and therefore, it is for the applicants to prove that they were not inside the house at that time of her death. Hence, prima facie charges for offence punishable under section 302 or 302 read with section 34 of IPC could be framed alongwith other charges. It would be apparent that death of the deceased was unnatural and she was being harassed for dowry demand soon before her death and therefore, prima facie charge for offence punishable under section 304B of IPC shall also constitute. Similarly, if it is found that the deceased committed suicide then, alternate charge for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC shall also be constituted. Similarly, if it is found that the deceased committed suicide then, alternate charge for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC shall also be constituted. It is the settled view of Hon'ble the Apex Court that if charge under section 304B of IPC is framed then, charges for offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act should be framed separately. If trial Court has framed such charges then, no illegality or perversity is found in framing of charges. However, it is to be mentioned that charges for offence punishable under section 304B of IPC should not be framed in alternate. Charges for offence punishable under section 302 or 302 read with section 34 of IPC can be framed with the alternate charge of offence punishable under section 306 of IPC, whereas charge for offence punishable under section 304B of IPC shall be framed separately. The trial Court may proceed with the case according to such framing of charges. At present, it cannot be said that the applicant Swati, sister-in-law of the deceased was not involved in any crime and therefore, it is not a case in which any discharge order may be directed in favour of any of the applicants. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revisions filed by the applicants cannot be accepted. Consequently, all the revisions filed by the applicants are hereby dismissed at motion stage. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.