Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2805 (RAJ)

Lata W/o Late Puran Chitara v. State of Rajasthan

2022-11-23

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
ORDER 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Criminal Revision Petition may kindly be allowed, order passed by Learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Sirohi, dated 05.09.2018 for framing charges against the accused petitioner for offence punishable u/s 306 I.P.C. may kindly be quashed and set-aside and accused petitioner may kindly be discharged from the offence u/s 306 I.P.C." 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that on 08.02.2018, respondent no.2/complainant submitted a written report before the S.H.O., Police Station, Sheoganj (Arinpur), Sirohi and alleged therein that his brother (deceased Puran Chitara) died by suicide on 07.02.2018 due to abetment by one Shiv Dayal Soni. That his brother (deceased Puran Chitara) wrote a suicide note on Whatsapp, and also made a will with respect to his property. The respondent no.2/complainant further stated that the deceased died by suicide due to an affair between his wife Smt. Lata (present petitioner) and Shiv Dayal Soni. 2.1 On the basis of the said report, an F.I.R. bearing no. 0036/2018 was registered before Police Station, Sheoganj (Arinpur), Sirohi for the offences under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015); upon investigation, a charge-sheet for offence under Section 306 IPC was filed against the present petitioner by the concerned police authorities; on the basis of which, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Cases, Sirohi framed the charge for the offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner, vide the impugned order dated 05.09.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of framing of the charge against the petitioner herein, deserves to be quashed and set aside, as the learned Court below failed to appreciate the fact that no specific allegation in the impugned F.I.R. nor in the suicide note of the deceased-Puran Chitara, was levelled against the present petitioner, and that the present petitioner is the wife of the deceased-Puran Chitara and their relations were cordial. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that no allegation of abetment to commit suicide was levelled against the present petitioner is there in the suicide note, and the will created by the deceased-Puran Chitara clearly stated harmonious and cordial relations between the present petitioner and her husband (deceased Puran Chitara). Therefore, as per the learned counsel, the impugned order passed by learned Court below is unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complanaint, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioner, submit that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that as per the settled legal proposition, at the stage of framing of charge, what is required of the concerned Court is to consider whether any prima facie any case is found to be made out or not. A detailed analysis and appreciation of the evidence is not required at this stage. 7. This Court further observes that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned Trial Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, as was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors (2012) 1 SCC 680 and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290 . 8. This Court thus observes that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned Trial Court is only required to prima facie presume whether a case against the accused may be made out. And that the facts that emerge from the case may be taken at face value; if they disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offences, then the charges may be framed. 9. This Court however, observes that the contents of the FIR, the Suicide Note and the will have not been rightly appreciated by the learned Court below, even to the extent necessary at the stage of framing of charge. The relevant portion of the Suicide Note in question written by the deceased Puran Chitara. reads as follows:- 10. 9. This Court however, observes that the contents of the FIR, the Suicide Note and the will have not been rightly appreciated by the learned Court below, even to the extent necessary at the stage of framing of charge. The relevant portion of the Suicide Note in question written by the deceased Puran Chitara. reads as follows:- 10. This Court, after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed on the record, specifically the impugned FIR, the Suicide Note and the will of the deceased-Puran Chitara, finds that even prima facie, the ingredients constituting the offence under Section 306 IPC are clearly absent in the present case. 11. This Court, thus, observes that the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner deserve to be accepted, solely with regard to the above mentioned provision of law, as also keeping in view the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the precedent law of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the criteria for making interference in an order of framing of charges or taking cognizance, against the accused concerned. 12. This Court, in light of the above discussion, finds that the learned Court below, vide the impugned order, has incorrectly proceeded to take cognizance and frame the charge against the present petitioner, for the offence under Section 306 IPC, despite the explicit contents of the impugned FIR, the Suicide note and the will, from which it is clearly discernible that no prima facie case can be made out against the present petitioner. 13. In view of the above, this Court quashes and sets aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the learned Court below, to the extent of the charge framed against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 306 IPC, and accordingly, acquits her of the charges for the said offence. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of.