The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence before framing a charge under Section 302 of the IPC, and the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in framing charges.

M.K. Mudgal, J.

Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record.

With the consent of both the parties, the case is being disposed of finally at motion stage.

1. The petitioner/accused has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 6.6.2013 passed by the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 332/12 framing the charges under Section 306 and in the alternative 302 of the IPC. The facts in brief of the case are that on 31.5.2012 when the dead body of the deceased Ankur (husband of the petitioner/accused) was found in his shop he was immediately taken to the hospital for medical help where he was declared dead. Thereafter a merge was registered on the report of Pramod at the police station and subsequently on the investigation on that report an FIR was registered against the petitioner/accused and one Rohit in Police Station Chachoda at Crime No. 238/12 stating that the petitioner was having an affair with co-accused Rohit and they used to harass the deceased with threats of implicating him in a false case of dowry that was the reason why the deceased committed suicide and the petitioner had abetted him to commit suicide. After completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments stated that he did not want to press this revision against the charge under Section 306 of the IPC. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner challenges only the legality and propriety of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC which has been framed in alternative against the petitioner vide impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously pleads that there was no prima facie evidence on record for framing the charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the petitioner. In spite of that the said charge has been framed without any basis. Besides, the prosecution has not filed charge sheet under Section 302 of the IPC against the petitioner. Apart from that, the doctor who conducted the postmortem has not opined on any cause of death of the deceased in the postmortem report and he preserved the visara of the deceased for FSL examination to find out the cause of death. No injury has been found on the body of the deceased. The counsel further submits that report from the FSL has not been produced before the trial Court so far, owing to which, there was no basis before the trial Court to frame the said charge. The counsel further submits that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.

3. Moreover, all the witnesses have deposed in their statements that the deceased committed suicide owing to having been harassed by the petitioner and co-accused Rohit, therefore, the charge framed by the learned trial court under Section 302 of the IPC be quashed.

4. The learned Panel Lawyer supporting the impugned order has submitted that the trial has been commenced before the trial Court and chief examination of five witnesses have been recorded by the trial court, hence, at this stage there is no need to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. Learned Panel Lawyer further submits that report of FSL has not been received till now. On receiving the said report result might be different if the poisoning substance is found in the report.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the charge levelled by the trial court under Section 302 of the IPC is absolutely justified as the deceased Ankur was in the company of the petitioner/accused on the night of the incident so the petitioner/accused has to explain in what circumstances Ankur died. Because of this it may be presumed that the petitioner is liable for murder of the deceased Ankur (husband).

6. The learned counsel placing reliance on the judgments ILR [2008] M.P. 3284 Prahlad Tanwani Vs. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 4