Chattisgarh High Court
Narsingh And Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: II(2002)DMC142, 2002(2)MPHT1(CG)
ORDER Fakhruddin, J.
1. The revision is heard finally.
2. The applicants have filed the present revision against the order dated 6-12-2001 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in S.T. No. 427/2001 regarding framing of charges under Sections 498A, 304B and 306/34, IPC,
3. The prosecution story is that the applicant No. 1 Narsingh was married to Devki Bai. Within a period of seven years of marriage Devki Bai died. After lodgment of report the post mortem was conducted and it was found that the death was respiratory failure due to poisoning. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the applicants.
4. Learned Additional District Judge after hearing counsel for the parties and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case has framed the charges against the applicants.
5. Shri Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the cognizance has wrongly been taken and according to him offence under Section 498A is punishable with the maximum sentence for a period of three years and as such the Trial Court was not justified in framing charges under Section 498A of the IPC. He submits that so far as the charge under Section 304B is concerned the applicant is ready and willing to face the trial but the charge for the offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC ought not to have been framed.
6. The cognizance is taken under Section 190 of the Cr.PC. In this connection Section 468 of the Cr.PC is relevant which deals with "Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation". Section 468(3) is quoted herein below:--
"For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment."
Sub-section (3) of Section 468, Cr.PC postulates that in relation to offences which may be tried together, limitation shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. The offence under Section 304B is punishable with life imprisonment and as such the cognizance has rightly been taken and thus the charges have rightly been framed. Even otherwise for the purpose of framing of charge the law is well settled. In the case of State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari and Ors., reported in 2000(3) M.P.H.T. 164 = 2000(1) JLJ 142, their Lordships of Supreme Court has observed as under :--
"It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima fade consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilty of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence."
7. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances of the case there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order framing charges passed by the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision fails and is dismissed.