Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 989 (HP)

Anjana Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-05-13

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Petitioners have filed the present revision petition, under Section 397, read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 03.03.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Sessions Trial No.7 of 2021, titled as State versus Anjana Thakur and Others. 2. By way of order dated 03.03.2021, the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioners, for the commission of offence punishable, under Section 306, read with Section 34 IPC. 3. Petitioners have been impleaded as accused in a case arising out of FIR No.169 of 2019, dated 29.08.2019, registered under Section 306, read with Section 34 IPC, with Police Station, Dhalli, Shimla. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet, under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, has been filed and the learned trial Court, vide order dated 3.3.2021, has framed the charges against the petitioners, as referred to above. 4. Order dated 3.3.2021, has been assailed before this Court, on the ground, that the learned trial Court has not considered the documents attached with the report. According to the petitioners, in case, the said documents are taken as it is, then, no case is made out against the petitioners for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. 5. The order has also been assailed, on the ground, that there is no evidence on record to demonstrate that the petitioners, in any manner, had abetted the commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 6. The order impugned herein has also been challenged on the ground that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the material documents on record and in case, the documents would have been appreciated correctly, then, no case under Section 306 IPC could have been made out. According to the petitioners, the learned trial Court has not exercised its jurisdiction to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out or not. 7. According to the petitioners, if the statements of the witnesses, recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, are taken as it is, then no case is made out against the petitioners. 7. According to the petitioners, if the statements of the witnesses, recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, are taken as it is, then no case is made out against the petitioners. There is no iota of evidence to suggest that the petitioners were having mens rea to commit the alleged offence. 8. Order dated 3.3.2021 has further been assailed on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioners have ever maltreated, harassed or defamed the deceased. 9. In nut shell, according to the petitioners, no case is made out against them for the commission of offence punishable, under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. 10. Apart from this, the petitioners have also pleaded their defence that petitioner No.1 had got issued legal notice and also filed complaints, under the Domestic Violence Act, for the cruelty and beatings given to her by deceased Kamal Kishore. 11. Elaborating their stand, it is the further case of the petitioners that even after cruelty and beatings, petitioner No.1, had forgotten everything and compromised the matter with the deceased, on his assurance. 12. To buttress their contentions, it has been pleaded by the petitioners that firstly, the compromise was entered into, in a Domestic Violence complaint pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Shimla, when the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. Thereafter, the other compromise had taken place before the Panchayat on 26.09.2018. 13. It is the further case of the petitioners that husband of petitioner No.1-Kamal Kishore deceased had given beatings to petitioner No.1, on 02.08.2019, due to which, she had left the matrimonial home on 03.08.2019. Thereafter, she had lodged rapat No.13, which was forwarded by the Police to the CDPO. In the said complaint, petitioner No.1, had alleged that deceased threatened her to commit suicide and implicate her and her family members by mentioning their names, in the alleged suicide note, if she will not come to home, within 10 days. 14. In nut shell, it is the case of the petitioners that had these facts been considered by the learned trial Court, then there would have been no occasion for the learned trial Court to frame charges against the petitioners. Along with the petition, complete report, under Section 173(2) Cr.PC has been annexed. 15. 14. In nut shell, it is the case of the petitioners that had these facts been considered by the learned trial Court, then there would have been no occasion for the learned trial Court to frame charges against the petitioners. Along with the petition, complete report, under Section 173(2) Cr.PC has been annexed. 15. Petitioners are before this Court against the order, by virtue of which, the learned trial Court has framed the charges. 16. As stated above, complete copy of the charge sheet, along with documents, has been placed on record. During investigation, the suicide note allegedly written by the deceased has also been annexed. In the alleged suicide note, the deceased had mentioned the names of all the petitioners. 17. At the time of framing the charges, the Court has to see only the prima facie case. The strict standard of proof would not be applied at the time of framing the charges. The charge is to be framed on the basis of the evidence, so collected by the prosecution during the investigation. In case, the material, so collected by the prosecution, remains unrebutted and on the basis of such evidence, if the conviction is possible, then, the Court is free to frame the charges. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. Dilip Singh Kishore Singh Rao, 2023 SCC Online 1294, has held that at the time of framing of the charge, the Court has to see the material collected by the prosecution to determine whether a case has been made out for proceeding with the trial or not and the defence of the accused is not required to be considered. Relevant paragraphs 7 to 10 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:- 7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet material. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed. 8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only. 9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the chargesheet material at the stage of framing the charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the I.O. 10. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the I.O. 10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan and Others, (2014) 11 SCC 709 adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject has held: “29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.”(self emphasis supplied) 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar versus State of Haryana, (2024) 3 SCC 573. With due respect to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said decision, in no way, helps the case of the petitioners, as, the dispute before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was regarding the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court, as upheld by the High Court. 20. As stated above, at the time of framing the charges, the evidence, so collected, is to be considered on the basis of its face value. As such, no benefit can be derived from the said decision. 21. So far as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Singhal & Another vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others, (2024) 1 SCC 417 , is concerned, with due respect to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said decision, in no way, helps the case of the petitioners, as, in the present case, in the alleged suicide note, names of all the accused persons (petitioners) have specifically been mentioned and it will be proved during the trial, whether, in fact, all the accused had abetted the deceased for taking the extreme step or not. 22. Even otherwise, the case of the petitioners herein is totally different, as, in the case, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the dispute was with regard to borrowing money by the widow of the deceased, whereas, in the present case, the deceased had written suicide note, alleging against the accused persons. 23. So far as the judgment of this Court in Shyam Lal Negi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , 2017 (Supp) Shim. 23. So far as the judgment of this Court in Shyam Lal Negi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , 2017 (Supp) Shim. LC 315 , is concerned, the factual position involved, in the present case, is totally different, as, the deceased, in the said case, was subordinate to the person, against whom, the allegations of abetment, have been levelled, whereas, in this case, the petitioners are not subordinate to the deceased, but, petitioner No.1-Anjana Thakur was better half of the deceased, who had taken the extreme step to finish his life, as per the case of the prosecution. 24. Even, if the stand of the petitioners is considered, then, whatsoever, they have pleaded, at this stage, can be said to be their probable defence, which, the petitioners would take, before the learned trial Court during the trial. Charges can be framed, even, on the basis of uncorroborated statements, recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. 25. As held in earlier part of the judgment, at the time of framing of charges, the criterion, which, the Court ought to have adopted, is that if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, then, the result could be the conviction of the accused. If the answer is in affirmative, then, the order framing the charges cannot be challenged, before the revisional Court, in which, the scope of interference is very limited. 26. So far as the much relied document i.e. the compromise, is concerned, at the most, on the basis of this document, one thing can be said, at this stage, that the relationship between the parties earlier were cordial and by virtue of this document the dispute between petitioner No.1, deceased and Ajay were settled. This compromise, had allegedly taken place between the parties on 26.09.2019. But, this document, at this stage, cannot be read as disadvantage to the prosecution case. 27. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the order framing the charges against the petitioners, as such, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 28. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present petition.