IMPORTANT POINT
A judge must evaluate evidence to establish a prima facie case for framing charges, considering the totality of circumstances.

ORDER :

Prakash Chandra Gupta, J.

Heard. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/accused under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by the order dated 28-8-2023 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District, Indore, whereby learned Trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner under section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Prosecution story, in brief is that on 2-11-2022, at 08:55 PM, father (present petitioner) of the deceased Sanjana @ Sakina lodged a Dehati Nalisi stating that on the same day, his father was admitted at M. Y. Hospital, Indore and his wife had gone to Indore to look after his father. The petitioner had gone to his farmland and his daughter/deceased was alone in the house. When the petitioner returned home at around 08:00 PM, he saw that the deceased committed suicide by hanging in the house. During post-mortem, it was found that death of deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of compressive injuries in neck within 24 hrs. Nature of death was homicidal. After merg enquiry, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and a minor brother of the deceased. During investigation, it was found that there was telephonic conversation between the deceased and a person named Shubham @ Shivam. In the evening of 2-11-2022, Shubham had called Dayanand and had asked him to give phone to the deceased and let him talk to her. The conversation was heard by co-accused/brother of the deceased. Brother had given life threat to Shubham and he rushed to pelt stone on the deceased but Dayanand and others had intervened in the matter. It was also found that the petitioner and co-accused killed the deceased by strangulation and to hide the offence, the petitioner had given false information that the deceased had committed suicide. The accused persons wanted to do last rites of the deceased without intimating the police. But the police had reached at the place of incident after receiving information from unknown person. The petitioner had stated that he had burnt the noose rope. It was also found that the height of hook on which noose was tied, was 9 ft 4 inch high, which was far beyond the reach of the deceased. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested. A blood stained shirt of the petitioner and rope used in the crime were seized from the petitioner. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner has not committed the offence and has falsely been implicated in the case. At the time of the incident, the petitioner was not present at his house. As alleged, allegation of strangulation of the deceased is on minor son of the petitioner and the petitioner has concealed the evidence and had given false information of the incident to the police. Prima facie, charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner but the Trial Court, without considering the evidence collected during investigation, has wrongly framed charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that as per post-mortem report, injuries were found on the bodies of the deceased and the concerned doctor opined that cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of compressive injuries on neck and was homicidal in nature. The incident had taken place inside the house of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the deceased was residing with the petitioner in the same house. The defence taken by the petitioner that he was not present at the time of the incident in the house is a matter of evidence. There is prima facie sufficient material in the case against the petitioner therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly framed charges aga