At the charge framing stage, the prosecution's evidence is taken at face value, and the defence is not considered; if the evidence suggests a possible conviction, charges must be framed.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. Petitioners have filed the present revision petition, under Section 397, read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 03.03.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Sessions Trial No.7 of 2021, titled as State versus Anjana Thakur and Others.

2. By way of order dated 03.03.2021, the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioners, for the commission of offence punishable, under Section 306, read with Section 34 IPC.

3. Petitioners have been impleaded as accused in a case arising out of FIR No.169 of 2019, dated 29.08.2019, registered under Section 306, read with Section 34 IPC, with Police Station, Dhalli, Shimla. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet, under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, has been filed and the learned trial Court, vide order dated 3.3.2021, has framed the charges against the petitioners, as referred to above.

4. Order dated 3.3.2021, has been assailed before this Court, on the ground, that the learned trial Court has not considered the documents attached with the report. According to the petitioners, in case, the said documents are taken as it is, then, no case is made out against the petitioners for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

5. The order has also been assailed, on the ground, that there is no evidence on record to demonstrate that the petitioners, in any manner, had abetted the commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

6. The order impugned herein has also been challenged on the ground that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the material documents on record and in case, the documents would have been appreciated correctly, then, no case under Section 306 IPC could have been made out. According to the petitioners, the learned trial Court has not exercised its jurisdiction to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out or not.

7. According to the petitioners, if the statements of the witnesses, recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, are taken as it is, then no case is made out against the petitioners. There is no iota of evidence to suggest that the petitioners were having mens rea to commit the alleged offence.

8. Order dated 3.3.2021 has further been assailed on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioners have ever maltreated, harassed or defamed the deceased.

9. In nut shell, according to the petitioners, no case is made out against them for the commission of offence punishable, under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

10. Apart from this, the petitioners have also pleaded their defence that petitioner No.1 had got issued legal notice and also filed complaints, under the Domestic Violence Act, for the cruelty and beatings given to her by deceased Kamal Kishore.

11. Elaborating their stand, it is the further case of the petitioners that even after cruelty and beatings, petitioner No.1, had forgotten everything and compromised the matter with the deceased, on his assurance.

12. To buttress their contentions, it has been pleaded by the petitioners that firstly, the compromise was entered into, in a Domestic Violence complaint pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Shimla, when the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. Thereafter, the other compromise had taken place before the Panchayat on 26.09.2018.

13. It is the further case of the petitioners that husband of petitioner No.1-Kamal Kishore deceased had given beatings to petitioner No.1, on 02.08.2019, due to which, she had left the matrimonial home on 03.08.2019. Thereafter, she had lodged rapat No.13, which was forwarded by the Police to the CDPO. In the said complaint, petitioner No.1, had alleged that deceased threatened her to commit suicide and implica