Nandkishor Rampal Lohiya & others vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000 Supreme(Bom) 712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
Vagyani B.B., J.
Nandkishor Rampal Lohiya others .... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent.
Criminal Revision Application No. 131 of 1999, decided on 14-9-2000.
Advocates appeared :
Vijay Sharma, for petitioners.
N.H. Borade, A.P.P., for respondent.

Headnote:-Sections 227 and 228-Acused must exhaust his remedy of discharge given under Section 227, before the stage of framing charge and not thereafter,-Chapter XVIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is in respect of trials before the Court of Sessions. The accused can claim discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code when thee is no ground to sustain the charge. At the stage of framing charge, meticulous consideration is not required. What is relevant at the stage of framing charge is sufficient of ground for proceeding against the accused and not whether the material on record is sufficient for conviction. The conjoint reading of Sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly points out that the accused is required to exhaust his remedy of discharge given to him under Section 227, Cr PC before the stage of framing charge and not thereafter. Where the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The accused cannot claim discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Now the only course open was to record the evidence and terminate the trial either in acquittal or in conviction after following due procedure.
Sections 228 and 229 to 235 procedure for trial before Court of Session-After framing of charge under Section 228 and after recording plea of accused-Sessions Judge is required to follow procedure contained in Section 229 to 235, Cr PC-There is no provision for dropping charge under Section 216, Cr PC.
-Section 216-Criminal conspiracy-Offence can be proved either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence-Additional charge framed under Section 120-B found not to be warranted-Said order quashed.

JUDGMENT - VAGYANI B.B., J.:---Heard Shri Vijay Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri N.H. Borade, learned A.P.P., for the State.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent, taken up for final hearing.

3. This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 7-1-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No. 47 of 1994. The petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner No. 4 is their Accountant and the petitioner No. 5 is serving as driver.

4. The deceased Jyotsna was married to petitioner No. 1 on 14-12-1985, Jyotsna was to attend the marriage of her brother at Beed. On 23-5-1991, the petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 were asked to reach Jyotsna to Beed. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 did not send their grand son Kalpesh along with Jyotsna. The petitioner No. 1 wanted to join Jyotsna. He left his house on Hero Honda Motorcycle and overtook the vehicle. He asked the petitioner No. 5 to go back on his motorcycle to Parali and took the control of vehicle. The petitioner No. 4 sat by his side. Jyotsna was on the rear seat of the Maruti Van. The petitioner No. 1 drove the vehicle towards Beed. The sliding door of the Maruti Van suddenly opened and Jyotsna fell down from the van on the road. The petitioner No. 1 stopped the vehicle. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 got down from the van, picked up injured Jyotsna and took her to the hospital of Dr. Pradeep Vangikar at Parali. Thereafter, Jyotsna was admitted in S.R.T.R. Medical College and Hospital, Ambajgai. As per medical advice, Jyotsna was shifted to Rubi Hospital at Pune. Jyotsna, however, succumbed to her head injury on 14-6-1991.

5. On 18-6-1991, accidental death case No. 19 of 1991 was registered at Parali (Rural) Police Station. The enquiry of accidental death was entrusted to Police Head Constable Omprakash Mehendre. Police Head Constable Mehendre recorded statements of all concerned including Hiralal Ramlal Sarda, father of deceased Jyotsna on 2-7-1991. Hiralal Sarda told police that Jyotsna had no problem or trouble from her in-laws. He further stated that he did not harbour any suspicion about death of Jyotsna.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Beed noticed certain mistakes and omissions in the enquiry of accidental death No. 19 of 1991 and, therefore, he directed reinvestigation by S.D.P.O., Ambajogai. The statement of Hiralal Sarda was recorded afresh. Hiralal Sarda, on 8-12-1991, told police that the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 subjected Jyotsna to ill-treatment on account of her failure to comply with the dowry demand. Hiralal Sarda expressed suspicion about death of Jyotsna.

7. On the basis of the statement of Hiralal Sarda, Crime No. 268 of 1991 has been registered against the present petitioners. After completion of the necessary investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and thereafter the case is committed to the Sessions Court, Ambajogai.

8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai framed charge against the petitioners under sections 498-A and 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

9. The petitioners, by their application Exhibit 56 dated 31-7-1996, moved the learned Additional Judge, Ambajogai for discharge. In the alternative, they prayed that the charge framed under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code be dropped. The State opposed the said application for discharge.

10. The Special Public Prosecutor filed application Exhibit 62 dated 16-10-1996 and thereby moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai for framing additional charge under sections 120-B, 304-B, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioners opposed the said application Exhibit 62.

11. By composite order dated 7-1-1999, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai rejected the application filed by the petitioners for discharge. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai partly allowed the application Exhib

Click Here to Read the rest of this document