Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1722

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
KISHORE C. SANT, J.
Utsav Shivkaran Helambkar - Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Satara Police Station & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision Application Nos. 144, 173 of 2019
Decided On : 10-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Chaitanya V. Dharurkar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kuldip S. Kahalekar h/f Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, Mrs. G.L. Deshpande, APP.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient material to proceed against the accused and the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and evaluate the material and documents on record to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence.

Headnote:
Criminal Revision Application - Discharge of Accused - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 498-A read with 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application for discharge of the accused under Sections 306, 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment referenced key legal provisions such as the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted, and the need for sufficient material to proceed against the accused. The court also highlighted the importance of evaluating the material and documents on record to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. The judgment emphasized the need for a strong suspicion against the accused and the requirement to frame charges based on sufficient material.
Fact of the Case:

The deceased was allegedly harassed by her in-laws, leading to her suicide. The accused, Respondent No.2, filed an application for discharge, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Court. The informant and the State filed Criminal Revision Applications against this order.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was sufficient material available on record to frame charges against Respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC. The court held that the learned Sessions Court had committed an error by discharging Respondent No.2 and that there was evidence in the form of suicide notes and statements of witnesses, including the deceased's daughter, attributing a role to Respondent No.2 in the harassment of the deceased.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether there was sufficient material to proceed against Respondent No.2 and whether the learned Sessions Court had erred in discharging her.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and the need for sufficient material to proceed against the accused. It also highlighted the importance of evaluating the material and documents on record to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. The judgment emphasized the need for a strong suspicion against the accused and the requirement to frame charges based on sufficient material.
Final Decision: The impugned order discharging Respondent No.2 was quashed and set aside, and the Court directed to proceed to frame charges against Respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC as framed against other accused persons.

JUDGMENT :

Heard by consent of the parties, the matter is taken for final disposal at the admission stage. Both the Revisions are against the same order and hence are heard and decided together.

1. The Criminal Revision Application No.144/2019 is filed by the Original Informant challenging an order passed by the learned Sessions Court discharging Respondent No.2 from the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short).

2. The facts of the case in short are as below;

The Informant is brother of deceased Rasika, who was married to the brother of Respondent No.2 on 05.06.2008. It is alleged that since the marriage itself, all the in-laws started harassing the deceased. The husband used to say that the deceased is not liked by his sister i.e. present Respondent No.2 as she is short and is not matching to him. Her husband used to call the deceased as ‘Karanti’, i.e. one who has brought a bad luck. Three years prior to incident, an amount was demanded for purchasing a plot. Therefore, father of deceased had given Rs.2,00,000/-. There was further demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for making construction on the said plot. On such count, husband always used to abuse and beat the deceased. After fourteen months of marriage, deceased delivered baby girl. On that count again, all in-laws got disappointed. So far as Respondent No.2 is concerned, it is alleged that she used to tell husband of deceased that the deceased has brought a bad luck for the family. Whenever she used to come to house of deceased, she used to harass and taunt the deceased. Ultimately, deceased got fed up with her husband, who was acting at the instigation of Respondent No.2 and on 17.06.2016 at around 05:45 am., Deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well. She was found in a well near the house with her daughter Jigisha in the said well, Jigisha survived as could manage to hold a rope in the well. Deceased succumbed to the injuries and was declared dead at 08:00 in the morning by the doctor in Government Medical College and Hospital (GHATI), Aurangabad. Thereafter, late in the evening at 11:26 pm., FIR came to be lodged against the in-laws of deceased for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 306 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 2 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. On the basis of FIR, police carried the investigation. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed on 12.08.2016. Police seized two suicide notes which were found in the house. Respondent No.2 (Rekha) preferred an application for discharge in Sessions Case No. 243/2016. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad by order dated 05.04.2019 allowed the application for discharge of Respondent No.2. By the said order, in short, it is held that the suicide note do not disclose any specific instances of cruelty at the hands of present Respondent No.2 and that it is not found that the husband of deceased acted at the instance of Respondent no.2. Respondent No.2 was residing with her matrimonial house and occasionally used to visit the house of deceased. This order is assailed in these Criminal Revision Applications, one by the Informant and other by the State.

4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that there was sufficient material on record to clearly point out the guilt of the Respondent No.2. It is this Respondent No.2, at whose instigation the husband of deceased used to harass the deceased. When voluminous material was available on record, learned Court below has committed error by discharging Respondent No.2. At the stage of framing of charge and considering the application for discharge, what needs to be seen is only as to whether there is sufficient material available on record to proceed against the Accused persons? When the role of Respondent No.2 is clearly spelled out in the suicide note and in the statement of witnesses especially minor girl who was also thrown in the well, it was proper to