Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 15 (JK)

Gh. Mohd. Bhat v. State of J&K

2015-02-06

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.:- 1. Completion of investigation of the case registered as FIR No. 101 of 2009 Police Station, Pattan culminated in presenting the Charge Sheet (Challan) for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 RPC. Learned Trial Court (Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla) after hearing the learned PP and counsel for the accused, vis-a-vis, framing or otherwise of the charge, has passed the order impugned dated 31.12.2009 holding therein that the commission of offence under Section 306 RPC prima facie is not made out whereas offence punishable under Section 498-A RPC is made out. Charge has been framed for the commission of the said offence to which the accused pleaded not guilty. Since the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, as such, has been transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub-Judge), Pattan for disposal under law. Dissatisfied with the discharge of the accused of the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 RPC, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition. 2. It is projected that the scope for evaluating the material for the purposes of considering the framing or otherwise of the charge is limited, roving inquiry into pros and cons being impermissible, therefore, the learned trial Court has embarked upon the evaluation of the material in a manner which indicates that the object of limited scope of considering the material collected during the investigation for ascertaining the prima facie strength of the commission of offence, has been observed in breach. 3. In opposition, counsel for the respondents highlighted that the revision petition is not maintainable at the instance of the complainant. Furthermore, State is satisfied with the order. In addition thereto, highlighted that framing of the charge is not an idle formality. Hearing of the accused at the stage of framing of the charge has the object which includes proper trial regarding the appropriate offences as may emerge prima facie on the Strength of the material collected to have been committed. 4. Petitioner has chosen to remain absent. The question as to whether the revision petition can be maintained at the instance of the complainant is already settled by this Court while deciding Cr. Rev. 4. Petitioner has chosen to remain absent. The question as to whether the revision petition can be maintained at the instance of the complainant is already settled by this Court while deciding Cr. Rev. Petition No. 15/97 captioned Abdul Rehman Reshi v. Bashir Bhat, 1998 S.L.J 312 : JKJ Soft JKJ/7163, wherein at para 4, it has been held as under: ".......The Revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is also not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of discharge/acquittal against which the State has expressed no grievance........" 5. In short, scope for entertaining the revision petition at the instance of private complainant is permissible but power has to be exercised with circumspection dependent upon the fact position of the case. 6. The important situation as arises is as to whether the case of exceptional circumstances is made out so as to exercise the Revisional powers at the instance of the private complainant. In this connection, it shall be quite relevant to precisely notice the factual background which has given rise to the registration of the case. 7. Death of Mst. Zareefa in mysterious circumstances gave rise to an inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Her dead body was taken into custody on 29th March, 2009 by the police concerned. Then was taken to Sub-District Hospital, Pattan. After completion of formalities, dead body was handed over to her relatives for burial. Post mortem report reveals that deceased had died due to poison. Father of the deceased lodged a report to the effect that the deceased had been subjected to ill treatment and harassment by her in-laws. Statements of witnesses have been recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. 8. Record would reveal that the deceased was married in the year 1999 and from the wedlock she has given birth to two issues. It is in the year 2009, there had been some altercation between the deceased and her mother-in-law (Accused No. 5 Mst. Bakhti). They were pacified by a neighbour. Father-in-law (Accused No. 4, Sonaullah Shah) had called his two daughter-in-laws, i.e., the deceased and Mst. Khalida and admonished them by saying that both of them have caused trouble in the house. It has also emerged from the record that the deceased was taken for treatment to SMHS Hospital Srinagar. Bakhti). They were pacified by a neighbour. Father-in-law (Accused No. 4, Sonaullah Shah) had called his two daughter-in-laws, i.e., the deceased and Mst. Khalida and admonished them by saying that both of them have caused trouble in the house. It has also emerged from the record that the deceased was taken for treatment to SMHS Hospital Srinagar. She was in her full senses and had denied categorically of having taken any poison. 9. Learned Trial Court has noticed that there are two sets of ocular witnesses. One set comprises of husband of the deceased, their neighbours and doctor. Another set comprises of father, brother of deceased and some of other neighbours. The first set completely exonerates the accused whereas the another set alleged that the deceased took the extreme step because of ill treatment and harassment. Learned trial Court after referring to the scope of evaluating the material at the stage of framing or otherwise of the charge and while quoting the principles to be followed as have been laid down in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samel and another, reported as 1979 Cr.LJ 154, has also quoted that there has been minor instance of altercation between the deceased and her mother-in-law. That apart, there has been no negligence in providing all medical treatment to the deceased. Nothing adverse has been alleged against her husband; instead father of the deceased has, in categoric terms, stated that nothing is attributable to the husband of the deceased. 10. The notable feature of the case is that the deceased was married in the year 1999. Occurrence has taken place on 27th March 2009. During the intervening period of more than ten years, the deceased had given birth to two children and in a span of ten years, nothing is alleged of such grave concern which would suggest that there could be any reason for the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide. 11. Extra care is required to be taken as in the eventuality of such type of episodes; an attempt is always made for roping in all the relatives including elders, youngsters so as to wreck vengeance. 11. Extra care is required to be taken as in the eventuality of such type of episodes; an attempt is always made for roping in all the relatives including elders, youngsters so as to wreck vengeance. In this connection, it shall be relevant to quote the following portion from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and another, reported as (1994) 1 SCC 73 :- ".....the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing as finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty......" 12. The Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case. Mere harassment or a small altercation followed by reprimand as has happened in the instant case, as appears from the record, would not attract applicability of Section 306 RPC. While sifting the statements of the father and brother of the deceased, prima facie commission of offence under Section 306 RPC is not made out. However, at this stage, on the strength of the material available, offence under Section 498-A RPC is attracted. 13. The judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Reshi v. Bashir Bhat, 1998 S.L.J 312 : JKJ Soft JKJ/7163 squarely applies to the present case. Therefore, a well reasoned order passed by the learned trial Court in consonance with the principles followed at the stage of framing or otherwise of the charge, does not call for any interference. It being so, revision petition is devoid of force, as such, dismissed. Therefore, a well reasoned order passed by the learned trial Court in consonance with the principles followed at the stage of framing or otherwise of the charge, does not call for any interference. It being so, revision petition is devoid of force, as such, dismissed. Copy of the order along with trial Court record be sent to the trial Court {Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub-Judge), Pattan} with a direction to the trial Court to ensure expeditious disposal of the case.