Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1332 (MP)

Ripesh Kushwaha v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-11-09

ANJULI PALO

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.10.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Special Case No.23/2020 whereby charges have been framed against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 313, 317, 201, 419, 120-B read with 34 of the IPC and Section 5(2) read with 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. 2 . In brief, the prosecution case is that the applicant is qualified MBBS Doctor and he runs Sanjeevni Hospital at District Anuppur. A Merg Bearing No.36/2019 was registered at police station Anuppur on 03.06.2019 and during investigation statements of Sanjay Rane, Anand Kumar Johata (Ward Boy) Dr. S.R.Paraste (Doctor), Smt. Sangeeta Singh (Staff Nurse), present applicant who is Director of Sanjeevni Hospital, were recorded. During investigation it was found that on 02.06.2019 at 2:41 PM a newborn of one day was brought at District Hospital Anuppur by his father Arjun Yadav. After admitting the newborn at hospital, he escaped from there and on the very same day the infant passed away at the hospital. Police registered offence under Section 317 against the parents of the newborn. When the police failed to trace out the whereabouts of the parents, then on 01.11.2019 filed khatma report. After the delay of more than 8 months on 23.02.2020 the mother of infant namely Renuka Yadav resident of Gram Bartarai, Police Station Ramnagar District Anuppur filed a written complaint allegig that Umesh Yadav (main accused) by concealing his identity and revealing himself as Arjun Yadav, first took prosecutrix to Sanjeevni Hospital for abortion and thereafter he took his infant to District Hospital Anuppur. Consequently, statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C of prosecutrix was recorded. In her statement she stated that she was in relationship with Umesh Yadav since 2016 and got pregnant in the year 2018. Umesh took her to Sanjeevni Hospital whereby the applicant and Dr. Kanti who is Gynecologist stated that she is pregnant and later on delivery was performed and thereafter Umesh took her to District Hospital Anuppur and then dropped her near her village. 3. Umesh took her to Sanjeevni Hospital whereby the applicant and Dr. Kanti who is Gynecologist stated that she is pregnant and later on delivery was performed and thereafter Umesh took her to District Hospital Anuppur and then dropped her near her village. 3. Hence, police of police stationÃÂ' Kotwali, Anuppur registered FIR vide Crime No.327/2019 against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 313, 317, 201, 419, 120-B of the IPC and Section 5(2) read with 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. By the impugned order, the trial Court framed charges as mentioned above. 4. The applicant prays for quashing the charges on the grounds that the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C does not reveal any malafide against the applicant. It is also not mentioned in her statement that the applicant caused miscarrige to her as she herself admits that child was alive and was sent to District Hospital, Anuppur for further treatment. There is no direct or indirect allegation on applicant that he had aided the accused persons in concealing the facts and evidence as accused and prosecutrix have themselves concealed the identity. Therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant. 5. Heard and perused the record. It is not disputed that the applicant is the Director of Sanjeevni Hospital at District, Anuppur. Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C has been recorded where she stated that Umesh Yadav took her to Dr. Lalit Narayan Mishra of Jaitahari and they took her to Sanjeevni Hospital where delivery was performed. The applicant claims that he is falsely implicated in the case and there is no apparent malafide on his part. 6. This Court is not inclined to accept his defence at this stage. As per the record, after framing of charges, trial is on progress. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and also her Court statement supported the prosecution case. 7. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to consider prima facie evidence available on record. It cannot consider the evidence extraneously. The evidence is not to be weighed meticulously at this stage. A strong suspicion, if found upon the material and presumptive value supports; the Court should frame charge against the accused person. 8. 7. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to consider prima facie evidence available on record. It cannot consider the evidence extraneously. The evidence is not to be weighed meticulously at this stage. A strong suspicion, if found upon the material and presumptive value supports; the Court should frame charge against the accused person. 8. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at this stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC. The expression, "the record of the case" used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police. (See State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 : AIR 2005 SC 359 and State of J& K v. Sudershan Chakkar (1995) 4 SCC 181 : AIR 1995 SC 1954 ).' 9. In this context, it is apt to refer to the decision in the case of Bhawna Bai Ghanshyam and Others, (2020) 2 SCC 217 wherein in paragraphs 13 and 16, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as follows: '13. Though the circumstances alleged in the charge-sheet are to be established during the trial by adducing the evidence, the allegations in the charge- sheet show a prima facie case against the accused- respondents 1 and 2. The circumstances alleged by the prosecution indicate that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused to be seen. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx 16. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused to be seen. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx 16. After referring to Amit Kapoor in Dinesh Tiwari v. State of UP, the Supreme Court held that for framing charge under Section 228 CrPC, the Judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing of parties, if the Judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame the charge against the accused for such offence. 10. What is required to be seen for framing of charges is whether there is strong suspicion which may lead to the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. The above proposition is supported with law laid down in the cases of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar, (1979) 3 SCC 4 ; State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa , (1996) 4 SCC 659 ; State of Bihar v. Ramesh Sin@h, (1977) 4 SCC 39 , Kamlendra Bahadur Mishra v. State of UP, 2021 SCC OnLine All503; and Shakiluddin v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 52. 11. In view of the aforesaid legal principles set out by the Supreme Court, in the instant case, prima facie consideration of the prosecution case raises a grave suspicion. While examination of charge sheet shows that there are sufficient grounds to proceed. It is settled principle that at the time of framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. 12. In view of the preceding analysis, this revision being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.