Ratnamala W/o Pushpakar Naik vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Bom) 88

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
G.A. SANAP, J.
Ratnamala W/o Pushpakar Naik – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 124 of 2022
Decided On : 07-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Akshay A. Naik.
For the Respondent: S.A. Ashirgade.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498-A, 306, 304-B, 34, 107 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227, 228 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 4 – Offence Punishable –First Information Report – Offence Charge-sheet – Abetment of suicide - Framing of charge – Offence of Dowry death - Penalty for demanding dowry – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention – Whether trial will end in conviction or not – Held, Court cannot act as a mouth piece of prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge – It is held that at stage of consideration of application for discharge, Court has to proceed with an assumption that materials brought on record by prosecution are true and evaluate said materials and documents with a view to find out whether facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose existence of all ingredients constituting alleged offence – At this stage, Court is not expected to go deep into matter and hold that materials would not warrant a conviction – It is held that what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting accused has been made out – It is further held that law does not permit a mini trial at stage of deciding discharge application or at time of framing of charge – Accordingly dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. Heard.

2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

3. In this revision application, challenge is to the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, whereby the application (Exh.29) made by the applicant/accused no. 2 for discharge in Sessions Case No. 51/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, came to be rejected.

4. The facts relevant for decision of the revision application can be summarized as follows:

Deceased Pradnya was married with Amol (accused No. 1), son of the applicant/accused no. 2. Their marriage took place on 24.12.2015. Deceased Pradnya committed suicide on 26.01.2016. Before marriage, the deceased and Amol were having love affair. Love affair culminated into marriage with the consent of the family members of Amol and the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that in the marriage, father of the deceased paid Rs. 1,50,000/- as a dowry. After marriage, the husband/accused no. 1 and the mother-in-law (accused no. 2) made demand of Rs. 40,000/- to the deceased as a dowry to meet household expenses. The deceased was subjected to mental and physical cruelty on account of non-fulfilment of said demand. Therefore, she committed suicide by taking jump on railway track in front of a running train. Father of the deceased reported the matter to the police. Police carried out the investigation. During investigation, apart from recording the statements of the witnesses in the know of the facts, a written note (chit) was found. The said written note has been placed on record as a suicide note. The investigation revealed complicity of accused nos. 1 and 2 in commission of the crime, which ultimately led to filing of the charge-sheet against accused nos. 1 and 2.

5. The application made by the applicant/accused no. 2 for discharge was rejected on 06.11.2019. Thereafter applicant/accused no. 2 approached this Court by filing revision. This Court (Coram: Avinash G. Gharote, J.) vide order dated 14.02.2022 set aside the said order and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for granting an opportunity to the parties of hearing and to pass a reasoned order. The application for discharge was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the order impugned in this revision came to be passed.

6. The sum and substance of the application made by accused no. 2 is that there is no iota of evidence to establish her complicity in commission of the crime and as such, to frame the charge against her. The available material relied upon by the prosecution owe-fully falls short to satisfy the basic requirements of law to frame the charge against accused no. 2. Accused no. 2 is falsely implicated on the basis of the report lodged by the father of the deceased.

7. The application was opposed by the State. It is the case of the prosecution that there is ample material in the form of written chit, WhatsApp messages between the deceased and the witnesses and the statements of the witnesses in know of the relevant facts to establish direct involvement of accused no. 2.

8. I have heard Mr. Akshay A. Naik, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record and proceedings.

9. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there is no iota of evidence to establish complicity of the accused no. 2 in the commission of crime. The facts stated in the first information report as well as in the statements of the witnesses are vague and the allegations are omnibus. No specific role has been attributed by any of the witnesses to accused no. 2. Learned advocate further submitted that on the basis of the written chit as well as WhatsApp messages and the statements of the witnesses, the basic ingredients of the offences allegedly committed by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document