Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. Shyam Sunder Singh Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 September, 2015

                         1                        Cr.R.No.735/2014

      Dr. Shyam Sundar Singh Bhadoriya & Others
                         Vs.
                    State of M.P.
24/09/2015
     Shri     M.K.       Chaudhary,        counsel      for   the
applicants/accused.
     Dr. (Smt.) Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Applicants have filed the instant criminal revision under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 22-08-2014 passed by the Court of 9th Additional Session Judge, Gwalior in S.T.No.409/2014 framing the charges against them under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicants/accused submits that by this criminal revision, the applicants/accused challenge only the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC framed by the trial Court.

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the deceased

-Sushma Singh was solemnized with the applicant No.6/accused -Praduman Singh on 06-05-2013. She was subjected to cruelty and misbehaviour by the applicants/accused who are the father-in-law, the mother-in- law, the brother-in-law, the sister-in-law and the husband of 2 Cr.R.No.735/2014 the deceased for demand of Rs.6 lacs owing to which the deceased committed suicide by consuming sulphas on 03- 11-2013. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered under Section 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the applicants/accused under the same offences.

Learned counsel for the applicants/accused further pleads that there is no iota of evidence against the applicants/accused about their committing murder of the deceased whose dying declaration was not recorded in this case and the deceased did not herself leave any note regarding the circumstances of her death. Counsel further contends that no external injuries were found on the body of the deceased in the postmortem report. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death of the deceased has been reported to be failure of cardio-respiratory system owing to consumption of poisonous substance. It has not been opined by the doctor that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. Apart from this, there is no eye-witness in this case on record, saying that the deceased was beaten or assaulted or was administered any poisonous substance by the applicants/accused. In the said circumstances, there was no basis before the trial Court to frame the charge 3 Cr.R.No.735/2014 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against the applicants/accused.

Learned counsel for the applicants/accused has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini & Ors V. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2014 SC 841 and has prayed for setting aside the charge framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicants/accused has prayed for rejection of the revision.

Heard the arguments of both the parties.

Indisputably, after investigation the prosecution itself did not file the charge-sheet under Section 302 of IPC. After enquiry, the FIR was also registered under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC. The dying declaration of the deceased was not recorded in this case. As per the prosecution story, the deceased committed suicide by consuming sulphas. To frame a charge under Section 302 of IPC death must be homicidal in nature but the doctor who conducted the postmortem, has not opined in it that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. On the contrary, the cause of death has been reported to be failure of cardio-

respiratory system due to suspected poisoning. The postmortem report, prima facie makes clear that it was not a case of murder because no external injury was found on the body of the deceased. It is settled in the various cases that at the stage of framing of charge, the evidence of charge- sheet only should be seen and at that stage, the documents of defence cannot be considered. In the instant case, considering the entire evidence of the charge-sheet, it cannot be inferred that the deceased was murdered by the applicants/accused, therefore, learned trial Court has committed error in framing the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against the applicants/accused. Thus, the revision is allowed. The charges framed by the trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby set aside.

Resultantly, the revision is allowed as indicated above.

(M.K. Mudgal) Judge Anil*