Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2292
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Naresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 760/2022
Decided On : 16-09-2022
Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Adv. assisted by Priyanka Borana, for the Appellant
Vikram Sharma, PP and Bharat Devasi, for the Respondents
At the stage of framing of charge, a meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision Petition - Offence under Section 302 IPC - [Sections 302, 306 IPC] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the framing of charges, emphasizing that at the stage of framing of charge, a meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required. The court referred to precedent laws and held that the impugned order is a speaking order and does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged with the offence under Sections 302 and 306 IPC for the alleged suicide of his wife. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating that the deceased died by suicide and that the charge was based on false allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order of framing of charge was based on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the legal provisions governing the field. The court held that the impugned order is a speaking order and does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Issues: The issues revolved around the framing of charges for the offence under Sections 302 and 306 IPC, the alleged suicide of the deceased, and the petitioner's claim of false allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that at the stage of framing of charge, a meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required, citing precedent laws and legal principles.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 17.06.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Hanumangarh may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner to the extent of Section 302 IPC and petitioner may kindly be discharged from the offence under Section 302 IPC".
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, are that on 15.01.2021, complainant/respondent No. 2 filed an FIR bearing No. 0021/2021 at Police Station Bhirani, District Hanumangarh, for the offence under Sections 302 and 143 IPC against the present petitioner and his family members, stating therein that his sister (Deceased-Suman) was married to the present petitioner and at the time of their marriage, ample articles and ornaments by way of the Stridhan were given. The complainant/respondent No. 2 further stated that present petitioner and his family members used to treat her in an inhumane manner, and physically tortured her.
2.1. It was further alleged in the FIR that in the month of July, 2020, a panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute between the families, and to try and figure out the root cause of the dispute, but that the present petitioner did not extend any cooperation in relation thereto. That on 15.01.2021, the present petitioner and his family members killed the complaint's sister by hanging her.
2.2. After the investigation into the said FIR, the concerned police authorities filed a charge sheet for the offence under Section 306 IPC against the present petitioner, but filed a negative final report against the other family members.
2.3. Thereafter, the learned Court below vide impugned order dated 17.06.2022 framing charge for the offence under Section 306 IPC alongwith Section 302 IPC (in alternative) against the present petitioner.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR in question was lodged against eight persons, including the present petitioner-husband; most of the persons arrayed as accused were in-laws of the deceased, who were not residing with the petitioner, but the complainant chose to file a false case against the petitioner and his family members.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the deceased died by suicide by hanging, and that the same is also supported by the investigation officer to the effect that he opined that the cause of death was hanging, that too, ante mortem. Thus, as per learned Senior Counsel, the learned court below failed to appreciate the said material aspect, while passing the impugned order of framing of charge.
5. On other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for respondent/complainant opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the learned court below has rightly passed the impugned order after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidences placed on record, to the extent necessary at the stage of the framing of charge.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant, in support of the complainant's case, placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Vijay Pal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttrakhand (2014) 15 SCC 163; Ravirala Laxmaiah v. State of A.P. (2013) 9 SCC 283 and Rajbir @ Raju v. State of Haryana (2010) 15 SCC 116; he further placed reliance on the judgments rendered by Coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Court in the cases of Kashmir Singh v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Cri. Appeal No. 150 of 1984 decided on 21.12.1989); Smt. Kusumlata & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Pet. No. 369 of 2000 Decided on 13.04.2007
