Back
2003 (2) Crimes 19
Rajasthan High Court
B.S. Chauhan, J.
Lala Ram —Applicant
versus
State of Rajasthan —Respondent
S.B. Cri. Revision Petition No. 201/2002
Decided on 4-12-2002
Counsel for the parties:
For the Applicant :Mr. Amitabh Acharya, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. B.K. Mehar & Ms. Vidhya Bohra, Public Prosecu-tors.
Important Point
High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not permitted either to weigh evidence or examine adequacy of evidence for framing of charges if it comes to conclusion that there is prima facie evidence connecting accused with crime.
Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Petition for quashing order where by trial court framed charge against applicant, husband of deceased, for offences under Section 304B/306 and 498A IPC — Inherent power of court is limited only to examine that process of law should not be misused — Court is not permitted to weigh the evidence or examine the adequacy of evidence for framing of charges if there was some prima facie evidence connecting accused with crime — Prima facie evidence found against applicant — No fault could be found with order impugned. (Para 12)
(ii) Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 45 — Expert evidence — Expert’s opinion is hardly decisive as normally it is inconclusive — Expert only provides criteria for reaching correct conclusion but his opinion requires to be appreciated like any other evidence on record. (Para 16)
Result: Petition dismissed.
Order
B.S. Chauhan, J.— This revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 21-12-2001, by which the learned trial Court has framed charges against the applicant for the offences puni-shable under Section 304-B/306 read with Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”).
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 7-9-1995, applicant Lala Ram lodged an FIR in the Police Station that his wife Smt. Dushyant Kaur had committed suicide by hanging herself. The matter was investigated and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barmer, also, conducted an inquiry of the unnatural death and a case was registered against the appli-cant. The Judicial Magistrate Barmer, vide order dated 9-1-1998, took cogni-zance of the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 IPC against the applicant, considering the evidence on record and observing that prima facie there was evidence against him. Now, charges have been framed against the applicant vide impugned order, as mentioned above. Hence this revision petition.
3. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the applicant has placed great reliance upon the letters written by the deceased few days before her demise and recovered by the investigating officer during investigation and sub-mitted that the trial court had referred to one of the letters, but there is no iota of evidence against the applicant even in those letters and none of them is in her hand-writing.
4. True translation of the relevant part of one of the said letters submitted by Mr. Kundan Singh the maternal uncle of the deceased, reads as under :-
“I am writing to you for the reason that a girl cannot speak the words which I am going to write..... I was given beatings in the night, I reached here. I was asked to dis-close the names of persons whose children I have conceived and subsequently aborted. I was asked to face dire consequences if I did not disclose the names of such persons. He told me that he was aware of Jetha Ram, Magha Ram, Hansa Ram, Mahendra but he wanted to know the other names ....I am being threatened always that if I did not disclose everything correctly, I will be beaten and divorced. Gokul’s son came for Natha Ram who was not at home. He came and asked me as why did I call Gokul’s son. He was having the doubt that I had called him ..........I am being defamed in the entire locality and in the house and called a prostitute”.
5. In fact, this letter itself is enough to show that it is not a case wherein it can be held that there is no iota of evidence against the applicant.
6. It is settled legal proposition that the inherent powers of the higher court is limited only to examine that the process of law should not be misused to harass a citizen and for that purpose, the Court has no authority or jurisdic-tion to go into the merit or examine the evidence meticulously. (Vide L.V. Jadhav v. Shankarrao Abasaheb Pan-war1; The Nagpur Steel and Alloys (P) Ltd. v. .P. Radhakrishna2; Trisuns Chem-ical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors.3; Rajesh Bajaj v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi4; M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors.5 and Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Administration6.
7. In Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari & Ors.7, the Apex Court held that in exercise of its powers under Sections 482, Cr. P.C., the High Court cannot go into the merit of the evidence and appreciate the same for the reason that it is not the stage of appreciation of evidence. The Court cannot meticul-ously consider the evidence collected by the police at this stage. The Apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier judg-ments in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh8; and Mohd. Akbar Dar v. State of J&k9, wherein the Apex Court had held that at the stage of framing the charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and material by the Court is not required; nor the adequacy of evidence can be seen at this stage as it would amount to premature appreciation of evidence.
8. In State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi &
