C.R. Sarma, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. By this application filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is one of the accused persons, in Session Case No. 167 (K) 2006, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, has challenged the order, dated 28.05.2012, whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 201 /34 IPC.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the minor daughter of the informant, herein after called the deceased was, working as domestic assistant (maid servant) in the house of Sri Binod Sharma. On 7.2.1999, she was found hanging, from the roof, of the bath room of Sri Binod Sarma. She was immediately brought down from the hanging position and taken to a nursing home, wherein the medical officer declared her death. On being informed, Police arrived in the nursing home and, at the instance of police, her dead body was taken to the Mohendra Mohan Choudhury Hospital for post mortem examination. After opening her dead body, in course of the post mortem examination, a foetus of about 4/5 months was found in her abdomen. The parents of the deceased and her family members, including her brothers etc. were informed and they arrived in the cremation ground. The foetus of the deceased was buried in the bank of the Brahmaputra river and the dead body of the deceased was cremated in presence of the members of her family. The father of the deceased i.e. the informant, on 18.02.99, lodged FIR with the police, informing that the deceased was pregnant at the time of her death and that he suspected that his said daughter was murdered by Sri Binod Sarma to escape from the liability of her pregnancy. On receipt of the said FIR, police registered a case under section 302 IPC and launched investigation into the matter. During the course of investigation police arrested Sri Binod Sarma, the petitioner and others. At the close of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against Sri Binod Sarma for the offence under section 376(1) /302 IPC and under section 201 /34 IPC against the petitioner and Sri Rajen Rosali.

3. Considering the materials, on record, the learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, dated 28.05.2012, framed charges under section 376(1) /302 IPC against Sri Binod Sarma and under section 201 /34 IPC against the petitioner and Sri Rajen Rosali.

4. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that there is no materials, on record, to substantiate, in any manner, the involvement of the petitioner with the offence, under section 201 /34 IPC, in connection with the death of the deceased. It has also been submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed gross error and illegality by framing charge under section 201 /34IPC against the petitioner without any basis and as such the said charges are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied on the decisions held in the cases of (1). Col. Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1979 (4) SCC 2, (2). Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 337, (3). Chandrapal Singh & Ors. Vs. Maharaj Singh & Anr., reported in AIR 1982 SC 1238, (4). State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568, and (5). Kamal Kishore Vs. State through Delhi Administration, reported in 1997 Cri.L.J. 2106.

5. Refuting the said argument, advanced by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, referring to the decisions held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Raghavendra Awasthi Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2004 (3) GLT 167, has submitted that there is sufficient materials, on record, to presume that the petitioner got involved in comm