Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1498 (MP)

Raghuveer v. State of M. P.

2014-11-19

SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
ORDER Gupta, J. -- 1. By this criminal revision under section 397 read with 401 of IPC petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.7.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore District Shivpuri in S.T.No.117/2014 whereby the charges of offence under sections 306/34 and 323 (three counts) of IPC were framed against the petitioners. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on dated 13.1.2014 at about 10 a.m. when deceased Ramdevi went to field for preparing cattle food at that time petitioners/accused and co-accused Phool Singh were abused her. On hearing outcry, Muneshbai (sister of the deceased) reached on the spot and objected not to abuse. Petitioners/accused and coaccused started abusing to Muneshbai also and told obscene words “;g HkSal Hkh toku gks xbZ gS ;g Hkh Qjsxh bls Qjkuk gS” to deceased Ramdevi to outrage her modesty. When both sisters were returning to their home then petitioners/accused and co-accused followed them. When they entered into the house and closed the door then petitioners/accused and co-accused kicked the door. After this incident, on the act of using the obscene words by the petitioners against her, deceased had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. After registration of Marg and enquiry the police registered the case against the petitioners/accused and co-accused person under section 306 read with 34 of IPC. After completion of the investigation challan has been filed. 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore District Shivpuri has framed the charge under section 306 read with sections 34 and 323 (three counts) of IPC by order dated 25.7.2014. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that ingredient for the offence under section 306/34 of IPC is not made out and the deceased was herself responsible for committing suicide. He further submitted that petitioners/accused have falsely been implicated by the prosecution. It is also argued that there is no iota of evidence present on record to implicate the petitioners. He also submitted that learned Court below has not considered the ingredients of section 107 of IPC and there is no instigation or abatement to commit suicide, therefore, the offence under section 306 of IPC is not made out. He further submitted that only allegation is that when the quarrel was taken place they were present on the spot and they abused to Muneshbai. Hence, he prays that the charges framed against the petitioners be set aside and discharged from the charges. He further submitted that only allegation is that when the quarrel was taken place they were present on the spot and they abused to Muneshbai. Hence, he prays that the charges framed against the petitioners be set aside and discharged from the charges. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the citation of M. Mohan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 , Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. reported in 2002(2) JLJ 275 = AIR (2002) SC1998. 6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent has fully supported the impugned order of lower Court and submitted that the witnesses Muneshbai (sister of the deceased) and her husband Vakil @ Ramraja have categorically stated about the occurrence. Muneshbai was not only present on the spot but eye witness of the incident, in whose presence, petitioners/accused and other co-accused used obscene words to outrage the modesty of the deceased and also slapped to Muneshbai. Moreover, learned PL also submitted that there is ample evidence on record against the petitioners/accused. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. Considering the above submissions, it appears that there is prima facie evidence available on record by the statement of Muneshbai as well as Vakil @ Ramraja for framing the charges against the petitioners/accused under section 306/34 of IPC. The order of framing the charge is based on sound appreciation of material available on record and cogent reasons. No infirmity can be found with the impugned order of the trial Court for framing the aforesaid charge the petition is premature and it would not be proper to stifle the prosecution at this stage. 8. Moreover, it is trite to state that at the time of framing of charge the material and quality of evidence cannot be gone into. This Court is well aware about the limitation of the Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, which does not empower to intervene at an interlocutory stage. Moreover, all that has to be looked into at the time of framing of the charge is that whether there was existence of prima facie case. This Court is well aware about the limitation of the Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, which does not empower to intervene at an interlocutory stage. Moreover, all that has to be looked into at the time of framing of the charge is that whether there was existence of prima facie case. So also it would be profitable to rely on State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari and others reported in 2000(1) JLJ 142 = 2000(2) MPLJ 322, whereby the Court held thus : It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed. Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau reported in (2000) 1 SCC 138 whereby the Court held thus : It is well settled 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 that 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. State of Maharashtra and others v. Som Nath Thapa and others reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659 whereby the Court held thus : The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. 9. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. 9. Therefore, no infirmity, irregularity or illegality are found in the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. Accordingly, this revision petition is devoid of merits and hereby dismissed at this stage. It is made clear that nothing observed herein above shall prejudice the case of the petitioners/accused persons at the trial. Rajeev Upadhyay for petitioners; Ms. Chitra Saxena, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.