Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sushil Kumar Gupta, J.
Devendra Singh and others —Petitioners
versus
The State of M.P. —Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 758 of 2014
Decided on 12.12.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Shri Pradeep Katare, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State: Shri Prabal Solanki, PP.
IMPORTANT POINT
At the stage of framing of a charge probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 239 and 240 and 397—Revision against order for framing of charge under Sections 498A and 304B/34 IPC—Deceased got married in 2012 died in unnatural circumstances on 31.10.2013—Investigation revealed that deceased was being harassed in connection with demand of four wheeler and Rs.2,00,000—Contention that there was no evidence that petitioners were harassing deceased for demand of dowry soon before her death—At the stage of charge material to quality of evidence was not to be gone into—Court in revisional jurisdiction was not empowered to intervene at interlocutory stage—No interference was warranted.
Result: Revision dismissed.
ORDER
S.K. Gupta, J.— By this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.5.2014 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad District Bhind in S.T.No.90/2014 whereby the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, deceased Radha got married with Sahab Singh in the year 2012. On dated 31.10.2013 her father Fulzari Singh received information on mobile by Betal Singh that his daughter Radha has died in the night. On this information Fulzari Singh informed to the police. After registration of Merg and enquiry, it was found that husband Sahab Singh, mother-in-law (Munni Devi), brother-in-law (Devendra and Prem Singh) and sister-in-law (Kiran and Baby) were harassing the deceased Radha in connection with demand of four-wheeler and Rs.2,00,000 in cash and used to beat her.
3. After completion of the enquiry, FIR under Section 498A, 304B of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners as well as co-accused has been registered. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners and other co-accused. Learned Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that ingredient of Section 304B of IPC is not made out. There is no evidence against the petitioners that they were harassing the deceased for demand of dowry soon before her death. It is submitted that there is no specific evidence about demand of dowry against the petitioners. It is further submitted that there is no iota of evidence present on record to implicate the petitioners. He also submitted that learned Court below has not considered the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC, therefore, the offence under Section 304B of IPC is not made out
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State has fully supported the impugned order of Lower Court and submitted that the deceased Radha died within 1½ years of her marriage. He further submitted that she died in the house of the petitioners and other co-accused and there is prima facie evidence against the petitioners.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the evidence available on record and facts and circumstances of the case and from the statement of Fulzari Singh, it appears that there is prima facie evidence against the petitioners for harassing the deceased for demand of dowry.
7. In such premises, order of framing of charge is based on sound appreciation of material available on record and cogent reasons. No infirmity can be found with the impugned order of the Trial Court for framing the aforesaid charge. The revision is premature and it would not be proper to stifle the prosecution at this stage.
8. Moreover, it is trite to state that at the time of framing of charge the material and quality of evidence cannot be gone into. This Court is well aware about the limitation of the Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, which does not empower to intervene at an interlocutory stage. Moreover, all that has to be looked into at the time of framing of the charge is that whether there was existence of prima facie case. So also it would be profitable to rely on State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari and others, 2002(2) MPLJ 322. whereby the Court held thus:
It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed.
