Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1485 (MP)

Sunita Bai v. State of M. P.

2014-11-18

JARAT KUMAR JAIN

body2014
ORDER 1. This revision is filed under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short “the Code”] against the order dated 6.6.2014 passed by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T. No.233/2014, by which learned ASJ framed the charges against the applicant under sections 302, 294 and 506 of the IPC. 2. As per the prosecution case deceased Kanchan Bai (aged 82 years) was the mother-in-law of applicant Sunita Bai. On 23rd March, 2014 at about 11:45 p.m. there was scuffle between the applicant and the deceased and applicant pushed the deceased on the road from the house, therefore, she sustained injuries. Thereafter Shiv Kumar, son of deceased, immediately took her to Police Station Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain and lodged the report. On this basis Crime No.221/2014 under section 294, 323 and 506 of IPC was registered. She was sent to medical examination. During treatment she died at about 12:45 p.m. The Hospital Authority informed the police. Then Marg No.20/14 has been registered. Inquest report was prepared and thereafter her body was sent for postmortem. After completing the investigation, police has filed the final report against the applicant under sections 294, 323, 506 and 304 of IPC. After hearing the parties vide impugned order dated 6.6.2014 learned ASJ framed the charges against the applicant under sections 302, 294 and 506 of IPC. Being aggrieved with this order, the applicant has filed this revision. 3. I have heard Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S. D. Bohara, learned Govt. Advocate for the non-applicant/State. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution case applicant pushed the deceased but applicant has not caused any injury to the deceased. As per postmortem report, no external or internal injury found on her body and she died due to cardio respiratory failure. The applicant was not armed with any weapon and from the facts it is clear that there was no intention to kill the deceased. Thus, the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC are totally absent, the case may fall under section 323 of IPC. Learned ASJ has not considered the total effect of the evidence and documents produced before him. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the applicant can be charged for offence under section 302 of IPC. 5. On the other hand, learned Govt. Learned ASJ has not considered the total effect of the evidence and documents produced before him. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the applicant can be charged for offence under section 302 of IPC. 5. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate submits that there is ample evidence to fram the charges against the applicants. The charges are properly framed, therefore, the revision be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the impugned order, charges and the final report. 7. Before adverting into the issue, I would like to refer the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court reported in the case of Ashish Chadha v. Smt. Asha Kumari and another [ AIR 2012 SC 431 ], in which the Hon’ble apex Court has held :- “The High Court has in its revisional jurisdiction appraised the evidence which it could not have done. It is the trial Court which has to decide whether evidence on record is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused so as to frame charge against him. Pertinently, even the trial Court cannot conduct roving and fishing inquiry into the evidence. It has only to consider whether evidence collected by the prosecution discloses prima facie case against the accused or not. In this connection, it would be useful to refer to the observations of this Court in Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan and another, (2001)9 SCC 631 . “We find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. The revision power under the Code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers 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 powers 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.” 8. Thus, it is clear that while exercising the revisional power, the High Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence. Thus, it is clear that while exercising the revisional power, the High Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence. But the High Court can see that evidence taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety, even though no offence is made out against for which the accused has been charged. 9. Now I have to consider whether the evidence on record is sufficient for framing the charge under sections 302 of IPC. 10. In the FIR it is mentioned that on the date of incident at 11:45 p.m. there was a scuffle between the applicant and the deceased and during the incident applicant pushed the deceased on the road from her house. Shiv Kumar, who is son of the deceased, took her mother to police station Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain and lodged a report. Police has registered an offence under sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC and she was immediately sent to hospital for medical examination. Dr. Y.K. Vyas examined her at 12:30 p.m. at Civil Hospital, Ujjain. He has not found any mark of injury on her body but she was feeling uneasy, therefore, she was admitted in the hospital. Just after 15 minute she died in the hospital at 12:45 p.m. The intimation was sent to Police Station Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain and Marg was registered. Thereafter inquest report was prepared by Sub-Inspector Rajendra Jadhav. In the inquest report an abrasion was found on left hand and no other injury was found on the body of deceased. Her body was sent for post-mortam examination. Dr. R. Nidariya conducted the post-mortem. He has not found any external or internal injury. He opined that mode of death is cardio respiratory failure. But he has not given any opinion in regard to cause of death. Thereafter the Investigating Officer has sought opinion about the cause of death. The Dr. R. Nidariya opined that “if the deceased was suffering from any heart disease, then during scuffle she may died due to heart attack”. 11. As per the prosecution case there was scuffle between the applicant and deceased and applicant pushed the deceased on the road from her house. Deceased has not sustained any external or intrnal injury. But she died due to cardio respiratory failure. 11. As per the prosecution case there was scuffle between the applicant and deceased and applicant pushed the deceased on the road from her house. Deceased has not sustained any external or intrnal injury. But she died due to cardio respiratory failure. Therefore, by examining the entire evidence collected by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the applicant was intended to kill deceased who happens to be her mother-in-law. It is apparent that no ingredients of section 300 of the IPC was attracted in the present case. Hence, if the evidence taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety, even though no charge under section 302 of IPC could be framed against the applicant. 12. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the present revision is allowed. Consequently the impugned order dated 6.6.2014 passed by the VIIth ASJ, Ujjain in S.T. No.233/2014 is hereby set-aside. The applicant is discharged from the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to hear the learned counsel for the parties for framing of charges and to frame the charge a fresh. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance. Virendra Sharma for applicant; S. D. Bohara, Government Advocate for non-applicant/State.