NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J. (ORAL)

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties to this lis, all the above captioned petitions, i.e. CRR-1795-2015 (Sandeep @ Monu @ Sonu vs State of Haryana); CRR-1946-2015 (Sakshi vs State of Haryana) and CRR-4501-2015 (Naresh Kumar vs State of Haryana and others), are decided by the present common order, as all the three revision petitions have arisen out of the same impugned order.

Criminal Revision Nos.1795 and 1946 of 2015 have been filed by petitioners-accused Sandeep @ Monu @ Sonu and Sakshi, respectively, challenging the order framing charges against them for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 306, IPC. Criminal Revision No.4501 of 2015 has been filed by petitioner-informant-complainant Naresh Kumar challenging the same impugned order, dated 29.04.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 66, 66A and 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity, `the I.T. Act’), were not framed for prosecution of petitioners-accused Sandeep @ Monu @ Sonu and Sakshi.

Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, and Mr.Sunil Sangwan, Advocates, representing petitioners-accused Sandeep @ Monu @ Sonu and Sakshi, respectively, submitted as under:

1. that even if the entire material available on record is taken at its face value then also the gravamen of Sections 302 and 306, IPC, are not attracted qua the petitioners;

2. while passing the order framing charges, the learned trial Court failed to discuss material available on record to find out prima facie case against the petitioners-accused;

3. alternative charges under Sections 302 and 306, IPC, cannot be framed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand;

4. the disclosure statements in the shape of confession before the police, alleged to have been suffered by the petitioners-accused are inadmissible and, as such, the same have to be excluded while finding out a prima facie case for framing charges against the petitioners-accused;

5. and that the learned trial Court in the last para of the impugned order abruptly ordered for framing of charge under Sections 302 and 306, IPC, which is palpably wrong.

Mr.Balraj Gujjar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner-informant-complainant, Naresh Kumar, submitted that learned Court below has rightly framed the charges under Sections 302 and 306, IPC, but has gone wrong in not framing the charges against the petitioners-accused Sandeep @ Monu @ Sonu and Sakshi under the I.T. Act despite availability of the material connecting them with the said offences as well.

Learned counsel for the State after perusal of the photo copy of the record received from the learned trial Court fairly conceded that there was not an iota of evidence to connect the petitioners-accused with the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. However, he opposed the contentions of the learned counsel representing the petitioners-accused for their discharge for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the petitions filed by each petitioner and the photostat copy of the entire record received from the learned trial Court.

To be more specific in discussion, to answer the respective arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and proper adjudication of the three petitions in hand, the following issues have been identified:

(i) Whether there is a prima facie material to connect either or both the petitioners-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC;

(ii) Whether there is prima facie material to connect either or both the petitioners-accused for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC and

(iii) Whether the learned trial Court has failed to frame the charges under the I.T. Act despite availability of prima facie material against the petitioners-accused.

Since all the three issues identified hereinabove are i