Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 468
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
S.K. Palo, J.
Prashat Goyal - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
C.R.R. 167-2013
Decided On : 09-04-2015
For the Petitioner:Ankur Mody, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mukund Bharadwaj, Public Prosecutor.
At the stage of framing charges, only a prima facie case needs to be seen, and an in-depth appreciation of evidence is impermissible.
Headnote:
Dowry Harassment - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 304-B, Section 302, Section 306, Section 498-A - Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 471, Dasrath v. State of M.P. (AIR 2010 SC 2592)
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the death of a woman in suspicious circumstances, allegedly due to dowry harassment by her husband and in-laws. Charges were framed against the accused under various sections of the IPC based on allegations of demanding dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was prima facie evidence of ill-treatment and harassment for dowry, leading to the framing of charges against the accused. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, an elaborate inquiry or in-depth appreciation of evidence is not required, and a strong suspicion based on the material of record is sufficient to frame the charge.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of dowry harassment, ill-treatment, and abetment of suicide, leading to the framing of charges under relevant sections of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles established in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and Dasrath v. State of M.P. to determine the applicability of specific allegations and the presumption of abetment of suicide in cases of dowry harassment. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, only a prima facie case needs to be seen, and an in-depth appreciation of evidence is impermissible.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the framing of charges, stating that the impugned order did not require interference and lacked merit.
Case Details
- Criminal Revision No. 167/2013 decided on 09-04-2015 by Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior Bench (S.K. Palo, J.). (!)
- Petitioner: Prashant Goyal (husband of deceased's sister-in-law). [27000308520001][27000308520006]
- Respondent: State of M.P. [27000308520001]
Facts of the Case
- Deceased Amrita Agrawal (wife of Tarun Agrawal, aged 25) died on 06.09.2012 by hanging in suspicious circumstances. [27000308520001]
- FIR registered under Section 304-B r/w 34 IPC against mother-in-law, two sisters-in-law, and petitioner (husband of one sister-in-law). [27000308520001]
- Accused demanded Rs. 2 lakhs as dowry and harassed deceased; husband habitually consumed alcohol. [27000308520002]
- Accused (mother-in-law Shobha, sister Chanda, petitioner Prashant) taunted deceased for insufficient dowry, instigating husband to commit cruelty. [27000308520002]
- On 26.09.2012 (appears as potential date error; context suggests pre-death incident), deceased harassed, beaten, threatened, and thrown out by husband, brother-in-law, sisters-in-law, and petitioner; she narrated incidents to family at maternal home. [27000308520002]
- Deceased's father Mohan, with Govind and Anant Agrawal, visited matrimonial home where all accused present and demanded Rs. 2 lakhs; father requested 7-8 days to arrange money; deceased allowed to stay after requests; threats issued that non-payment would lead to harm or second marriage. [27000308520003]
- On 08.08.2012, deceased appeared morose at maternal home, stating fear of being killed by husband, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law, and petitioner if money not arranged. [27000308520004]
- On 06.09.2012, father Mohan learned of daughter's death upon visiting in-laws' home. [27000308520004]
- Similar statements by mother Shobha Agrawal and brother Amit Agrawal. [27000308520004]
- Charge-sheet filed; Sessions Trial No. 101/13 committed; 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior framed charges u/s 304-B (alt. 302, alt. 306) and 498-A IPC on 19.02.2013 against accused including petitioner. [27000308520005]
Petitioner's Arguments
- No evidence against petitioner; married to Pooja (deceased's sister-in-law) on 19.11.2002; resides separately at B-8, Samadhiya Colony, not at in-laws' home. [27000308520006]
- Challenged framing of charges as unsustainable. [27000308520006]
Prosecution/Respondent's Arguments
- Witnesses consistently placed petitioner at matrimonial home. [27000308520007]
- Deceased subjected to cruelty u/s 498-A (Explanation a & b) by husband and relatives for dowry demand; petitioner is relative of husband. [27000308520008]
Court's Analysis and Findings
- Specific allegations of active involvement by petitioner, not casual mention. [27000308520010]
- Not all in-laws/relations automatically liable for husband's faults. [27000308520011]
- Ingredients for Section 304-B established: unnatural death within 7 years of marriage; cruelty/harassment soon before death connected to dowry demand; presumption u/s 113-B Evidence Act applicable. (!) (!) (!)
- Prima facie evidence of ill-treatment with proximity to death; presumption of abetment of suicide u/s 113 Evidence Act not ruled out. [27000308520013]
- At charge-framing stage: no elaborate inquiry or in-depth evidence appreciation; only prima facie case or strong suspicion needed; not to weigh evidence for conviction. [27000308520013][27000308520014]
- Meticulous scrutiny uncalled for; standard for conviction not applicable. [27000308520014]
Final Decision
- Petition under Sections 397/401 CrPC dismissed as sans merit; no interference with charge-framing order. [27000308520015]
S.K. Palo, J.
1. This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No. 101/13 whereby charges under Section 304-B in alternative 302 in alternative 306 and under Section 498-A of IPC has been framed against the petitioner/accused.
2. It is alleged that deceased Amrita Agrawal, wife of Tarun Agrawal, aged 25 years died on 06.09.2012 in suspicious circumstances by hanging. Therefore, offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against her mother-in-law, two sisters-in-law and the applicant, the husband of the sister-in-law of the deceased.
3. During investigation it was found that the accused persons demanded two lacs rupees as dowry and were harassing the deceased. Husband of the deceased was in the habit of taking alcohol. His mother Shobha Agrawal, Sister Chanda and petitioner Prashant repeatedly 'taunting' the deceased for she did not bring sufficient dowry. On their instigation her husband Tarun Agrawal used to commit cruelty with the deceased. On 26.09.2012, deceased was harassed by her husband, brother-in-law, sisters-in-law and the applicant. She was beaten and threatened and thrown out from the house. Deceased narrated her maternal home and informed all the incidents. She told this to her father, mother accompanied by Govind Agrawal.
4. The father of the deceased accompanied with Govind Agrawal and Anant Agrawal went to her matrimonial home, where all the accused persons were present. Accused persons demanded 2,00,000/- rupees. Her father Mohan requested that he be given 7-8 days time to arrange such money. After several requests by Mohan, the deceased Amrita was allowed to stay in her in-laws house. The accused persons also threatened him that if 2,00,000/- rupees is not arranged, Amrita will be dealt and Tarun will go for second marriage.
5. On 8.8.2012 when Mamta Agrawal came to her matrimonial home, she was morose. When asked for the reasons she narrated that if the money is not arranged she will be killed by her husband, her mother-in-law and her sisters-in-law and husband of sister-in-law applicant Prashant Agrawal. On 6.9.2012 when by chance father Mohan went to her in-laws place, he came to know about the death of his daughter Amrita Agrawal. Similar statement has been given by her mother Shobha Agrawal and brother Amit Agrawal.
6. Charge-sheet was filed. After committal of the case, 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, vide order dated 19.02.2013 framed charge against the accused persons including the petitioner.
7. The petitioner claimed that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. No evidence is available against the applicant. The applicant married with Pooja, the sister-in-law of the deceased on 19.11.2002 and he is not living at her maternal house. He is residing at B-8, Samadhiya Colony, Taraganj, Lashkar. The petitioner has not committed any offence. Therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner vide order dated 19.02.2012 be set-aside.
8. Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the application and submitted that presence of the applicant has been permanently shown by the witnesses at the matrimonial home of the deceased. It would not be correct to say that deceased was not subjected to harassment by the applicant.
9. Cruelty was allegedly committed with the deceased for demand of dowry. She was subjected to cruelty as contemplated in a Clause "A" and Clause "B" to explanation of Section "498-A." Truely that such cruelty has been practiced by her husband and his relatives. The applicant do not claimed that he is not relative of her husband.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on "Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P." reported in (2012) 10 SCC 471 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. held that "a casual reference to the family members of the applicant (un-married sister and elder broth
