Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 32959
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J
Shalini Nahata – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRR 04694/2023
Ashok Kumar Jadhav,Advocate General
The court upheld the framing of charges against the petitioners under the Juvenile Justice Act and IPC, emphasizing the necessity of strong suspicion based on prima facie evidence at the charge framing stage.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 75 and 79 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 370 - Revision against framing of charges - Charges framed against petitioners for offences under the Juvenile Justice Act and IPC - Allegations of child exploitation and abuse - Court upheld framing of charges based on prima facie evidence. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 25)
(B) Framing of Charges - The court must determine if there is strong suspicion against the accused based on the evidence presented, without delving into the merits of the case. (Paras 10, 24)
Facts of the case:
The Child Welfare Committee rescued a child from the petitioners' residence, alleging he was mistreated and forced to work as a domestic servant. Charges were framed under relevant sections of the Juvenile Justice Act and IPC. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient prima facie evidence to uphold the framing of charges against the petitioners, affirming the trial court's decision. (Paras 25)
Issues: Whether the trial court's order to frame charges under Section 370 of IPC was justified based on the evidence available. (Paras 8, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court correctly framed charges based on the evidence indicating strong suspicion of the accused's involvement in the alleged offences, emphasizing that the stage of framing charges does not require proof of guilt. (Paras 10, 24)
Result: Revision petition dismissed; the impugned order of the trial court is affirmed.
With consent of the parties heard finally.
Invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has preferred this revision against the order of framing charges dated 31.07.2023 passed by the Thirteenth Additional Sessions/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, District Indore in S.T. No.339/2023 whereby learned Sessions Judge framed charges for offence under Section 75, 79 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 r/w Section 370 of of IPC , 1860 against the petitioners.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 06.10.2024 Child Welfare Committee rescued one child named Shivam from the residence of the petitioners. It was alleged that the child was working as a domestic servant at the residence of the Petitioners and even on small/petty mistake the petitioners used to beat Shivam and some times he was not provided with food on time.
On the basis of which Child Welfare Committee arrived at the finding that prima facie offence under Section 75 & 79 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 r/w Section 370 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. The Child Welfare Committee vide email dated 08.10.2021 communicated this incident to respondent and FIR bearing Crime No.1065/2021 was registered against the petitioners on 30.10.2021.
3. After investigation charge-sheet under Sections 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 was filed. In the sequel thereof, after considering material available on charge-sheet, the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioners under Section 75 & 79 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 along with Section 370 of IPC , vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved from that order, the petitioners have filed this revision.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that in brief the matter is related to framing of charges under Section 370 of IPC . Learned counsel mainly contended that in this case FIR was lodged under Section 75 & 79 of Juvenile Justice Act and 370 of IPC , however, charge sheet was filed only under Section 76 & 79 of Juvenile Justice Act and offence under Section 370 of IPC was removed from the charge sheet, in spite of the removal of offence under Section 370 of IPC , learned trial Court has wrongly framed charges under Section 76 & 79 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 370 of IPC , whereas offence under Section 370 of IPC is not made out at all.
5. Learned counsel contended that Rambabu Mahato was working in the house of the petitioners as a cook, later on he left the job to start his own business. During corona pandemic Rambabu approached the petitioners with a request to provide shelter and care to his child Shivam, as he was unable to maintain his family. The petitioners accepted the request and entered into an agreement for custody of the child on 06.08.2021. Counsel submitted that the petitioners have provided healthy food, shelter, and treated him as their own son. The child was not keen in studying hence they booked a return ticket and sent him to his home town. At any point of time they have not ill treated him, hence offence under Section 370 of IPC , is not made out against the petitioners.
6. Learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand, objected the contentions of learned Senior counsel and submitted that learned trial Court is free to take view as per evidence available before the Court. In this case the statement of juvenile and his father are significant. The child has clearly stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C that when he committed any wrong he has been beaten with wooden stick. He has clearly alleged in his statement that the lady, whom he used to call aunty, used to beat him. The child has also deposed that he used to do house hold work like sweeping, mopping, cleaning vessels, vehicles, purchasing vegetables and fruits etc for which Rs.4000/- has been paid to his mother. The petitioners have also not sent the child to school. Further the child also stated in his statement recorded under Secti
