Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 82 (GAU)

Toko Tadap, S/o Toko Rido v. State Of A. P.

2022-01-28

ROBIN PHUKAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : Legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 07.09.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia in Sessions Case No. 25/2017 (YPA), in Itanagar P.S. Case No. 145/2016, under Sections 120B/498(A)/306 IPC, in the matter of the State of Arunachal Pradesh –vs- Ramesh Chuku and Chuku Menu, is put to challenge in this revision petition, under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by Shri Toko Tadap, the informant of the case. 2. It is to be mentioned herein that vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2017, the learned Court below has discharged the accused Shri Chuku Ramesh and Chuku Menu, under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. from the charge under Section 120B/498(A)/306/34 IPC. 3. The factual background leading to filing of this revision petition is briefly stated as under: (i) The petitioner, Shri Toko Tadap is the father of the victim girl namely, Late (here in after ‘Lt.’) Toko Baby, who committed suicide on 18.04.2016. Lt. Toko Baby was in live in relationship with one Shri Chuku Ramesh and they were husband and wife since the year 2014, and resided at a quarter at Forest Colony, Itanagar. During the said relationship, respondent No.2 -Shri Chuku Ramesh subjected the victim girl to mental anguish and hardship and also cheated her and during their living in quarter at Forest Colony, the petitioner had provided financial assistant by giving a sum of Rs. 10,000/-to 15,000/-per month, for their living expenses. Shri Chuku Ramesh was in the habit of consuming alcohol and he had subjected the victim girl to physical assault and asked her to demand money from her parents and he had another wife and one baby also from that marriage. The petitioner had also purchased one Santro Car and gifted the same to his daughter with hope that Shri Chuku Ramesh would stop subjecting her to mental and physical harassment. (ii) Then in the month of September, 2014, the younger daughter of the petitioner was admitted at Heema Hospital and then Shri Chuku Ramesh came to the Hospital and threw the key of the Santro Car by saying that he is no longer willing to keep the victim as his wife. But, after 2 to 3 months, Shri Chuku Ramesh, i.e. respondent No.2, along with his mother-Smti. But, after 2 to 3 months, Shri Chuku Ramesh, i.e. respondent No.2, along with his mother-Smti. Chuku Menu i.e. respondent No.3, came to the house of the petitioner and beg apology to the family and discussed about their wedding rituals. And the petitioner forgave his son-in-law and accepted him back. But, despite the assurance, Shri Chuku Ramesh continued to subjecting the victim to mental and physical cruelty demanding monetary gains from her family. (iii) In the month of April, 2016 while Shri Chuku Ramesh was at Kimin and the victim came to stay at the house of the petitioner on 13.04.2016. The victim informed the petitioner that the accused Shri Chuku Ramesh has demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs) to purchase one Tata Sumo. Then on 17.04.2016, the deceased along with her siblings i.e. Toko Meena, Toko Apang and Toko Teni left for the victim’s quarter at Chandan Nagar, Itanagar. Upon reaching, there they found Shri Chuku Ramesh and his mother, and thereafter, they returned home. In the evening of 17.04.2016, Shri Chuku Ramesh and his mother-Smti. Chuku Menu, have leveled accusation that the victim had stolen two numbers of local beads (mala) and cash amount of Rs. 6000/-from the house of the mother of Shri Chuku Ramesh at Kimin in the month of April, 2015 and November, 2015 and also alleged that the victim had given the said amount to one lady as security as she had taken loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-and they would report the matter to her father i.e. the petitioner about the behavior of his daughter. (iv) Thereafter, in the morning of 18.04.2016, the two respondents, reached the house of the petitioner and reported him that his daughter had stolen two numbers of local beads and cash amount of Rs. 6000/-from their house at Kimin in the month of April 2015, and November 2015. On hearing the said allegations, the petitioner assured the respondents that he will solve the problem. Thereafter, while the respondents left the house of the petitioner, they informed that the victim had locked herself in the room at Chandan Nagar, Itanagar. On hearing the same, the petitioner, along with family members, rushed to the house of the victim at Chandan Nagar and found her hanging from the ceiling fan. He also found one Samsung mobile phone and one laptop in a broken condition. On hearing the same, the petitioner, along with family members, rushed to the house of the victim at Chandan Nagar and found her hanging from the ceiling fan. He also found one Samsung mobile phone and one laptop in a broken condition. He also noticed a bruised mark on her right anterior chin region measuring 3X2 cms. The respondents, without care, left the victim alone in the quarter at Chandan Nagar and proceeded to Kimin. (v) Thereafter, on 18.04.2016 at about 14:13 pm, the petitioner filed one FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station, upon which one UD (Unnatural Death) case, being Itanagar P.S. UD Case No. 07/2016, under Section 174 Cr.P.C has been registered and the matter was being investigated into. Thereafter, the petitioner approach the Superintendent of Police, Itanagar and file one complaint on 26.05.2016, to convert the Itanagar P.S. UD Case No. 07/2016, under Section 174 Cr.P.C into a regular criminal case under Section 306/304 of the IPC. Then on receipt of the said complaint letter dated 26.05.2016, from the Superintendent of Police, the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station converted the Itanagar P.S. UD Case No. 07/2016, under Section 174 Cr.P.C into a regular case, by registering one FIR, being FIR No. 145/2016, dated 30.08.2016. Thereafter, the O/C started investigation and the same culminated in submission of the charge-sheet against the respondents under Sections 120B/498(A)/306 IPC. Thereafter, on the appearance of the respondents before the learned Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, after hearing both sides, vide impugned order, dated 07.09.2017, discharge both the accused persons from the charges. 4. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.09.2017, the petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Petition on the following grounds that : (a) The Ld. Sessions Court, Yupia failed to appreciate the statements of the witnesses, which indicates that the victim was subject to mental and physical harassment by the respondents by demanding financial/material gain. (b) The Ld. Sessions Court, Yupia failed to appreciate Charge-Sheet No. 209/2016, dated 17.10.2016, while discharging the respondents under Sections 306/498(A)/ 34 IPC, and as per the IO there is a prima facie case against the respondents for abetting the suicide of the victim. (b) The Ld. Sessions Court, Yupia failed to appreciate Charge-Sheet No. 209/2016, dated 17.10.2016, while discharging the respondents under Sections 306/498(A)/ 34 IPC, and as per the IO there is a prima facie case against the respondents for abetting the suicide of the victim. In the said charge-sheet the IO clearly explains the history of the case with regard to the registration of the UD case vide Ita P.S. UD C/No.07/2016 u/s 174 Cr.P.C. and the registration of the instant case i.e. FIR No.145/2016 dated 30.05.2016 Ita P.S. U/s.498(A)/306/ 34 IPC against the respondents. And the same clearly goes to show that there was no delay in filing a complaint before the police on behalf of the petitioner, but the police, instead of registering a regular case, has registered the complaint as Unnatural death case, being Ita P.S. UD C/No.07/2016 u/s 174 Cr.P.C. (c) The Ld. Sessions Court, Yupia failed to appreciate the statements of the witnesses recorded by the IO wherein the witnesses categorically stated that the marital relationship between the victim and the respondent No.2-Shri Chuku Ramesh was strained due to the demands made by Shri Chuku Ramesh for financial gains from the petitioner. (d) The Ld. Sessions Court, Yupia wrongly appreciated that the instant FIR No.145/2016 Itanagar P.S. dated 30.05.2016 u/s 498(A)/306/34 IPC was made as a counter blast to the FIR 02/2016 Kimin P.S. dated 27.04.2016, under Section 448/427/506/34 IPC. That nowhere is it reflected in the charge sheet nor in any other documents as presented before the Ld. Sessions Court, Yupia in support of such statement. (e) That the Ld. Sessions Court, Yupia failed to appreciate the fact that at the stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C. the said Judge has to merely shift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. That, at this stage ‘ground’ in this context would be ground not for conviction but a ground for putting the accused on trial. Therefore, the Ld. Sessions Court, Yupia was not required to undertake an elaborate enquiry in shifting and weighing the evidentiary material. The Ld. Sessions Court, Yupia had to merely consider whether the evidentiary material on record could reasonably connect the accused with the crime. Therefore, the observation of Ld. Therefore, the Ld. Sessions Court, Yupia was not required to undertake an elaborate enquiry in shifting and weighing the evidentiary material. The Ld. Sessions Court, Yupia had to merely consider whether the evidentiary material on record could reasonably connect the accused with the crime. Therefore, the observation of Ld. Sessions Judge that there was ‘no concrete evidence to show that the accused persons in any way abetted the deceased to commit suicide’ would be an incorrect ground for discharging the accused persons; (f) That, the Ld. Sessions Court failed to appreciate the fact that just before taking an extreme step, she had talked to accused person. He was last person to whom deceased had made conversation that too in hot argument, which was heard by the witness. (g) That, the Ld. Sessions Court failed to appreciate the fact that persons with depression need not necessarily act out of the ordinary. That merely because the deceased had an argument over the phone before committing suicide or inviting her family for lunch would not necessarily be an indicator of normalcy. (h) That, the Ld. Sessions Court failed to appreciate the post mortem report wherein it notes that there was an external bruise on the right anterior shin region of the deceased of 3x2 cms. Additionally, the Ld. Sessions Court failed to appreciate the fact there was a possibility of a physical fight with the breakage of one Samsung Phone at the place of occurrence as reflected in the seizure memo. (i) Because the Ld. Sessions Court failed to appreciate the fact there was a prima facie case against the accused persons. Therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 5. I have heard Mr. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. Bori, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 6. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenge the propriety of the order on many grounds. Firstly, Ms. Danggen pointed out that the learned Court below has discharged the accused on following grounds: a. Marital relationship between the deceased and the accused no. 2 was not established; b. There are no ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. 6. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenge the propriety of the order on many grounds. Firstly, Ms. Danggen pointed out that the learned Court below has discharged the accused on following grounds: a. Marital relationship between the deceased and the accused no. 2 was not established; b. There are no ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. c. Independent witnesses not supported the prosecution version; d. There was delay in lodging of the FIR which was just a counter blast to the FIR lodged against them and no explanation has been offered for the delay. 7. Taking this Court through the materials on record, Ms. Danggen submits that the parties were belonging to a Schedule Tribes of Arunachal Pradesh and as per the customs, formal marriages is solemnize only after some days of living together as husband and wife. In the instant case, the respondent No. 2 and the victim were living as husband and wife for two years. It is further submitted that the prosecution witnesses some of the witnesses examined by the I.O. under section 161 Cr.P.C, are neighbor of the victim and the respondent, and they categorically stated that both of them are living together as husband and wife. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel further submits that the relationship between the respondent No.2 and 3 and the victim was not good and she was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty. She further submits that the respondent No.2 has been provided with the official quarter of the petitioner and the petitioner has also gifted one Santro Car to the respondent No. 2 besides providing a sum of Rs. 10,000/-to 15,000/-, per month, to them and the very conduct of the respondents, goes to show that there is material against them under Section 306 IPC. 8. Further Ms. Danggen, pointed out that one broken laptop and one mobile phone was found at the house of the deceased which goes to show that there was a quarrel between them and the neighborhood of the deceased also confirm the same. Further Ms. Danggen, also pointed out that the respondent no. 2 has demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-from the victim girl to purchase one Tata Sumo vehicle and that there are materials on record to show that the respondents have made an attempt to get rid of the victim. Further, Ms. Further Ms. Danggen, also pointed out that the respondent no. 2 has demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-from the victim girl to purchase one Tata Sumo vehicle and that there are materials on record to show that the respondents have made an attempt to get rid of the victim. Further, Ms. Danggen submits that this kind of offence usually took place inside the four walls of the house, and never committed in public, so as to enable the investigating agencies to collect direct evidence. Here in this case, the family members of the victim categorically stated the demands made by the accused and the gifts given to the respondent No. 2 and the extent of cruelty meted out to the victim. It is further submitted that some false allegation of stealing local beads and a sum of Rs. 6000/-was made by the respondents and since the deceased belongs to a well to do family, the question of committing such offences does not arise. 9. Ms. Danggan further submits that the FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. on 18.04.2016, but police did not registered a regular case, instead, it has registered one UD case upon the FIR lodged by the revisionist and at the intervention of the Superintendent of Police, the Officer-in-Charge registered a regular case. And as such, there is no delay in filing the FIR. 10. It is also submitted that the grounds so assigned by the learned Court below are not tenable in the eyes of the law and that the learned Court below also committed manifest illegality by holding that there is no concrete evidence against the respondents. What the Court require to see is a prima facie materials not the concrete evidence as reflected in the impugned order dated 07.09.2017. Ms. Danggen, also referred following case laws to hold good of her submission which are as follows: (i) Reema Aggarwal -vs-Anupam and Others; (2004) Vol. III SCC, Page-199, (ii) A. Subash Babu -vs- State of Andhra Pradesh and Another; (2011) Vol. VII SCC, Page-616, (iii) State of Maharashtra and Others -vs-Som Nath Thapa and Others; (1996) Vol. IV SCC, Page-659, (iv) Hem Chand -vs-State of Jharkhand; (2008) Vol. V SCC, Page-113, (v) State of A.P. -vs-Colconda Linga Swamy and Another; (2004) Vol. VI SCC, Page-522, (vi) Indu Jain -vs-State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. (2008) Vol. XV SCC, Page-341, 11. VII SCC, Page-616, (iii) State of Maharashtra and Others -vs-Som Nath Thapa and Others; (1996) Vol. IV SCC, Page-659, (iv) Hem Chand -vs-State of Jharkhand; (2008) Vol. V SCC, Page-113, (v) State of A.P. -vs-Colconda Linga Swamy and Another; (2004) Vol. VI SCC, Page-522, (vi) Indu Jain -vs-State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. (2008) Vol. XV SCC, Page-341, 11. On the other hand, Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that while dealing with a revision petition, this Court has to see only legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order and not beyond that. Mr. Sonar further submits that the allegation made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value failed to disclose the basic ingredients constituting the offence under Section 306 IPC. Mr. Sonar also refers the case of Shri Arab Goswami –vs.-State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427 , And further referring to the materials on record Mr. Sonar submits that the formal marriage between the deceased and the respondent No. 2 has never been solemnize and as such, Section 498(A) IPC is not attracted here in this case. It is further submitted that it is a fact that the respondents never visited the house of the victim after the incident, but the same was on account of fear to his life and to justify his submission Mr. Sonar submits that after the incident, the petitioner and the family members visited the house of the respondents at Kimin and ransacking their house and performed the last rite of the victim at the house of the respondents. Referring to the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal: (1979) 3 SCC 4 , Mr. Sonar submitted that Court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouth piece of the prosecution, but has to consider broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced and basic infirmities appearing in the case and roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weighing the evidence is not permissible. Mr. Sonar, therefore, submits that the impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity requiring any interference of this Court. And therefore, it is contended to uphold the impugned order and to dismiss the revision petition. 12. On the other hand Mr. Mr. Sonar, therefore, submits that the impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity requiring any interference of this Court. And therefore, it is contended to uphold the impugned order and to dismiss the revision petition. 12. On the other hand Mr. U. Bori, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the deceased and the respondent No. 2 were living together as husband and wife and the witnesses examined by the I.O. has established the same. It is further pointed out that there is no delay in lodging the FIR as on very date of occurrence, the FIR was lodged but what police did is they registered one UD case instead of a regular case. Later on, on the interference of the Superintendent of Police, a regular case has been registered and investigated into and submitted the charge-sheet. Further, Mr. Bori submits that the victim was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty and also allegation has been leveled against her regarding stealing of local beads and a sum of Rs. 6000/-from the house of the respondent No. 3 at Kimin by the victim and they also reported the matter to her father and if the self esteemed of the victim has been tarnish and, as a result, she commits suicide then the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the respondents as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana: (2019) 17 SSC 301. Further, Mr. Bori pointed out that there is a prima facie case against both the respondents and that the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same and to allow the revision petition. 13. Having heard the submission of learned advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the impugned order dated 07.09.2017 and also the materials placed on record and further the record of the learned Court below. 14. Before a discussion is directed to the points raised in the revision petition, we deemed it proper to understand the law regarding framing of charge as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by catena of decisions. 14. Before a discussion is directed to the points raised in the revision petition, we deemed it proper to understand the law regarding framing of charge as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by catena of decisions. In the case of Niranjan Singh, Karam Singh Punjabi –vs-J. Bhimraj Bujju, AIR 1990 SC 1962 , Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering its earlier case law on the subject has stated as under:- “(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the code has the undoubted power to shift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Whether the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence adduced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused he will be fully within his rights to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercise his jurisdiction u/s 227 of the code the Judge which (sic) under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad possibilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting the trial. 15. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting the trial. 15. Again in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal affairs, West Bengal -vs-Anil Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SSC 247: ( AIR 1980 SC 52 ), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 18 of the judgment as under: “The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding, the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion found upon materials before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify in respect of the commission of that offence.” 16. In a later decision, in the case of State of Maharashtra -vs-Somnath Thapa reported in AIR 1996 SC 1744 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that:- “If there is aground for assuming that the accused has committed the offence, that Court can justifiably say that the prima facie case against him exist and frame chafe against him for doing that offence. It was further observed that:- “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 a 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 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 state.” 17. In the case of State of West Bengal -vs-Mohd. Khalid & Anr.: (1995) 1 SSC 684, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted with approval its observation in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad case, (1989) 1 SSC, 715, held that while considering the question of framing of charge, the Court has to see as to whether materials brought on record reasonably connects the accused with the crime. Khalid & Anr.: (1995) 1 SSC 684, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted with approval its observation in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad case, (1989) 1 SSC, 715, held that while considering the question of framing of charge, the Court has to see as to whether materials brought on record reasonably connects the accused with the crime. No more is required to be enquired into. 18. In the State of Delhi -vs-Gyan Devi and Others [(2002) 8 SSC 239] this Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. In the State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.B. Johari [(2002) 2 SSC 57] it was held that the charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. In that case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. 19. In the State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and Others [(1997) 4 SSC 393] it was held that at Sections 227 and 228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense of the broad probabilities of the case. 20. In the State of Orissa vs, Debendra Nath Padhi, on 29 November, 2004, Appeal (crl.) 497 of 2001, a three judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that- “All the decisions, when they hold that there can only be limited evaluation of materials and documents on record and sifting of evidence to prima facie find out whether sufficient ground exists or not for the purpose of proceeding further with the trial, have so held with reference to materials and documents produced by the prosecution and not the accused. The decisions proceed on the basis of settled legal position that the material as produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused. The latter aspect relating to the accused though has not been specifically stated yet it is implicit in the decisions. It seems to have not been specifically so stated as it was taken to be well settled proposition.” 21. Again in Sajjan Kumar –vs-Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SSC 368, Hon’ble Supreme Court having taken into account various cases decided by earlier on the subject of framing of charge has summarized the principle which are to be kept in mind by the Court at the stage of framing of charge for discharge of accused under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. “(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. It is also held that:- a. It is clear that at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which led the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; b. If the evidence which the prosecution possess to adduce proves the guilt of the accused even if fully accept before it is challenge in cross examination or reverted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. 22. Now, having understood the proposition of law relating to framing charge now an endeavor will be made to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order, dated 07.09.2017, of the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia. 22. Now, having understood the proposition of law relating to framing charge now an endeavor will be made to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order, dated 07.09.2017, of the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Court below has held that “there is found no concrete evidence to show that the accused persons in any way abetted the victim categorically to commit suicide”. But requirement of law while framing charges is not the concrete evidences. The requirement is the prima facie case, as discussed in the catena of decisions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 23. Further it appears that the learned Court below, in the impugned order, held that the victim committed suicide by hanging on 18.04.2016, and the complaint was filed by Shri Toko Tadap, father of the victim before the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar P.S. on 25.06.2016, without giving any explanation for the delay. But, what eschewed consideration of the learned Court below is that on the very date of occurrence, i.e. 18.04.2016, the father of the victim Shri Toko Tadap has lodged one FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar P.S. upon which the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar P.S. has registered one UD case being Itanagar P.S. UD Case No. 07/2016 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The Officer-in-Charge did not register a regular case upon the said FIR. Instead he waited till receipt of the complaint, which the petitioner has lodged before the Superintendent of Police, wherein the Superintendent of Police has directed on the body of the petition to the Officer-in-Charge to convert the Itanager P.S. UD Case No. 07/2016, into a regular criminal case under Section 306/304 IPC. But, the Officer-in-Charge has flouted the said order; instead, he registered a new case being Itanagar P.S. Case No. 145/2016 under Sections 120B/498(A)/306 IPC. If the FIR, on the basis of which the Itanagar P.S. UD Case 07/2016 has been registered, is treated as FIR, there is no delay in lodging the same. It is worth mentioning here in this context that the FIR lodged on 18.04.2016, discloses commission of a cognizible offence and being first in point of time the same has to be treated at FIR. The second one would be a mere statement. It is worth mentioning here in this context that the FIR lodged on 18.04.2016, discloses commission of a cognizible offence and being first in point of time the same has to be treated at FIR. The second one would be a mere statement. And in the given facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the FIR lodged by the petitioner is the counterblast of the FIR lodged by the respondent against the petitioner. 24. The learned Court below further held that there is no ingredient of Section 306 of IPC. The ground, so assigned by the learned Court below, appears to be not sound convincing. Mr. Bori, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has rightly pointed out that when the self esteemed of a person is hurt and consequently the person concerned has committed suicide then the same would amount to abetment of suicide. The ratio, laid down in the case of Ude Singh and Ors. (Supra), referred by Mr. Bori, has fortified his version. It is to be mentioned here that in Ude Singh and Ors. (Supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if the accused is found to have played in an active role in tarnishing the self esteem and self respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, he can be held guilty of abatement of suicide. 25. It appears from the record of the learned court below that the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient materials against the respondents to show that:- (i) Missing of the local beads and cash amount of Rs. 6000/- occurred during the month of April 2015, and November 2015, and the matter was brought to the complainant on 18.04.2016, and till then the same was not even reported to anybody else. This goes a long way to show that the allegation is false and fabricated one, and it was made in a planned manner in order to harass the victim mentally and to compel her to bring cash amount of equivalent value from her father. (ii) A Santro Car and the accommodation were provided to the victim and the respondent No. 2, which clearly shows that the deceased was from financially sound family. (ii) A Santro Car and the accommodation were provided to the victim and the respondent No. 2, which clearly shows that the deceased was from financially sound family. And despite this fact she was put under constant threatening of revealing the theft of beads and cash amount before her parents, which make the deceased subdued under depression and mental trauma, which is a malicious act of the respondents calculated into last unwarranted steps of taking her own life by the victim in the morning of 18.04.2016, when the respondents finally went out to report the shameful act of theft that she never had committed, to her parents. (iii) On 18.04.2016 at about 8 am the respondents went to the house of the deceased parents and reported the matter of theft by the deceased and ask for its indemnity and while leaving the house of the deceased for their hometown at Kimin, the respondents told that their daughter has locked herself in a room on the quarter of the Forest Colony. Leaving for their native town, instead of making any effort to get the door opened for sorting out the matter with the victim goes to show their evil design of getting rid of her. And thereafter, the family members of the victim found her hanged from the ceiling fan. These facts and circumstances goes a long to show that something intolerable act has been done or intolerable words uttered against the victim before leaving the quarter in the morning of 18.04.2016, by the respondents. (iv) The exhibits seized from the place of occurrence on 18.04.2016, goes to show that something wrong was happened in between the deceased and the respondents. (v) The record also reveals that before taking the extreme step by the victim, she talked with the respondent No. 2 for the last time on that day, at about 7:30 am, in the morning over phone for 30 second. (vi) It also appears that the respondent No. 2 did not even bother to have a glance at the dead body of the victim and to perform her last rite and this reprehensible conduct of the respondent No.2. This is one of the most disturbing facts that goes to show the extent of their strained relationship, and it reflects their intention also. This is one of the most disturbing facts that goes to show the extent of their strained relationship, and it reflects their intention also. (vii) The series of acts and omission of the respondent No.2 and also of respondent No. 3 goes to show their knowledge and intention in committing the offences as alleged and further it shows that they have hatched a conspiracy. 26. Though Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondents tried to explain that on account of being retaliations, the respondent No. 2 had not dared to visit the house of the victim appears to be not at all satisfactory. Rather his conduct goes to show that he tried to get rid of the deceased by any means and the same stands apparent from the various statements made by him before the witnesses examined by the I.O. and also from his prior conduct of handing over the key of the car to the father of the victim at the Hospital. 27. It also appears that the victim and the two respondents were belonging to a Schedule Tribes of Arunachal Pradesh and as per their prevailing customs, formal marriages is solemnize only after some days of living together as husband and wife. In the instant case, from the statement of witnesses examined by the I.O. reveals that the respondent No. 2 and the victim were living as husband and wife for about two years. Their neighbor knows them as husband and wife. Thus, there is substance in the submission of Ms. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner that they were living as husband and wife and the society also recognized as them as such, and as such the respondent No.2 is husband as contemplated under section 498(A) IPC. The ratio laid down in the case of Reema Aggarwal (supra) also supported her version. And I am inclined to record concurrence with her submission. It is to be mentioned here that in the aforementioned case it has been held that it would be appropriate to construe the expression “husband” to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and the colour of such proclaimed of feigned status of husband subject the women concerned to cruelty or coerce her in any manner or for any of the purpose enumerated in the relevant provision. 28. There is also substance in the submission of Ms. 28. There is also substance in the submission of Ms. M. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner that this kind of offence usually took place inside the four walls of the house, and never committed in public, so as to enable the investigating agencies to collect direct evidence. And as such the family members of the victim are the only witness to support the prosecution case. But, in the case in hand it appears that the I.O. has examined some neighbor of the victim who had acquaintance with the incidents. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no independent witness. 29. I have also gone through the other case laws referred by Ms. Danggen and find that the same also supported her submission, but, for the sake of brevity, I am not inclined to burden this judgment with discussion of the said case laws. I have also gone through the case laws referred by Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondents and find that the ratio laid down therein proceeds on their own facts and circumstances and are not applicable in all force to the facts and circumstances here in this case. Therefore, detailed discussion of the same is found to be not necessary herein this case. 30. Thus, the materials available on the record and in the case diary, if taken at their face value, discloses a prima facie case under Sections 120B/498(A)/306/34 IPC against both the accused. And when the impugned order is tested on the touchstone of the principles of framing charges, as discussed herein above, and also in the light of facts and circumstances discussed above, I find that the same (impugned order) failed to withstand the test of legality, propriety and correctness. And accordingly, this Court is constrained to interfere with the impugned order. 31. In the result, this revision petition stands allowed. The impugned order, dated 07.09.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Sessions Case No. 25/2017(YPA), stands set aside. The respondents are directed to appear before the learned court below within 15th February, 2022. And on their appearance, the learned court below shall proceed with the trial on urgent basis. The LCR be returned to the learned Court below immediately.