Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 563 (MP)

Mamta Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-04-06

SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

body2022
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Sharma, J. - This revision petition has been filed by the accused/petitioner- Mamta Sharma against the orders dated 7.3.2022 and 9.3.2022 passed by the Sixth additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Session Trial Case No.135/2021 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge has been dismissed and by order dated 9.3.2022 charges under Sections 498-a, 304-B and 302 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition act have been framed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is apparent from the charge sheet itself that deceased anju Sharma committed suicide. at the time of incident her husband was in jail. The petitioner herein is sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased who never demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased. at the time of incident she was not present on the spot. There is ample evidence which clearly indicates that the petitioner was living in Bhind at the relevant time. Bald and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioner. There is no sufficient ground to frame charges against her. He further submits that there is no iota of evidence to suggest that offence of murder has been committed. This is a clear case of suicide, instead, the learned trial Court has mechanically framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC. The impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the petitioner should be discharged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini & Ors.vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) Cr.a. No.819/2013. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer with this submission that there is ample evidence available on record to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner. Heard and considered. True it is that charge in a criminal case cannot be framed without any evidence against a particular accused but at the same time at the stage of framing of charges the trial Court is not required to meticulously examine the merits of the case. If sufficient material is available which prima facie constitutes offence (s) charge (s) are to be framed accordingly. The defence of alibi by the present petitioner cannot be considered at the time of framing of charges and it is to be considered during the course of trial. If sufficient material is available which prima facie constitutes offence (s) charge (s) are to be framed accordingly. The defence of alibi by the present petitioner cannot be considered at the time of framing of charges and it is to be considered during the course of trial. However, on perusal of record, ample evidence in the form of statements of witnesses is available which is sufficient to prima facie construe that present petitioner Mamta Sharma being sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased anju along with other co-accused persons also made demand of dowry from the parents of deceased anju. She also committed physical and mental cruelty to her. Though deceased anju was found to be hanged in a room but her family members have categorically deposed that she could not have committed suicide. There is no eyewitness of the incident. The suicide/murder has been committed in the matrimonial house. In such a situation, in light of Section 106 of the Evidence act, it would be decided after trial whether deceased anju committed suicide or she was hanged by the petitioner and other co-accused persons. Thus, it cannot be said that the trial Court without any evidence has framed the charges against the present petitioner-Mamta Sharma. There is no dispute in the legal position expounded in the above cited judgment that charge of Section 302 of IPC should not be framed along with Section 304-B of IPC without any evidence but in this case as discussed above sufficient material is available to frame charge against the present petitioner under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, the above cited judgment does not help the petitioner. In view of the above discussion and the reasons stated, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The revision petition being devoid of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.