1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 5th OF APRIL, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4628 of 2022
Between:-
1. AYON SHARMA S/O ANUKUL SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION- SURGEON, R/O BASANT
VIHAR COLONY, LASHKAR, DISTRICT-
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. NEHA W/O AYON SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GYNAECOLOGIST 89 GANGANAGAL
DEWAS DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI RAJMANI BANSAL- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION-
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, DISTRICT-
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ANAMIKA THAKUR, D/O MADHAV
SINGH THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PATWARI RAJA BILHERA
POLICE STATION- SURKHI DISTRICT-
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
........RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
This revision coming on for hearing, this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 03/09/2022 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, District- Gwalior (M.P.) in S.T. No.44/2022 by which Sessions Judge has framed charges under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B and 201 of IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that police received an information that a half burnt dead body is lying near Kailash Vihar Colony and after receiving such information, police reached the spot and found the dead body which was brought to the dead house of J.A. Hospital for conduction of postmortem. Thereafter, merg No.03/2021 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. During merg inquiry, dead-body was identified by Anamika D/o Madhav Singh Thakur as her elder sister- Surya Singh who got married to one Sanjay Singh Bais, one and a half year ago. After marriage, Sanjay Singh stopped deceased- Surya Singh to visit her maternal house, due to which, some quarrel started taking place between them. On 15/01/2021, Anamika doubted that something went wrong with her elder sister- Surya Singh when she did not talk with her. The deceased was also absent from her office. Thereafter, she alongwith her family 3 members came to Gwalior and identified the dead body of her sister Surya Singh and suspected on husband of the deceased. Thereafter, FIR bearing Crime No.26/2021 was registered against Sanjay Singh, who is the husband of the deceased for the offence under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and investigation was commenced. As per postmortem report, cause of death of deceased is homicidal in nature. Deceased died within 36-48 hours since postmortem examination. Viscera has been preserved and sent for chemical analysis. During merg enquiry, statements of maternal side of the deceased were recorded, in which they have stated that husband- Sanjay Singh of the deceased, mother-in-law- Manorama, and present applicants who are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively used to demand the dowry and harass her with cruelty. Thereafter, offence under Sections 498-A & 304-B of IPC were added against the applicants and other co-accused. Thereafter, vide impugned order, learned Sessions Judge has framed charges under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B and 201 of IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants and other co-accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for applicants submited that offence punishable under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC are not made out as the basic ingredients necessary for even prima facie establishment of these offences are missing from the allegations contained in the prosecution story against the applicants and relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Ravikant 4 Dubey & ors. Vs. State of M.P. & ors. (2014) 2 MPHT 449. It is further submitted that initially in merg statements, there is no allegations against the applicants. Even in the first statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 17/01/2021 who is the sister of the deceased, there is no allegation against the applicants, either there is any presence of the applicants at the time of incident or there was any threat given by them to the deceased with dire consequences. After one month i.e. 15/2/2021, again the statement of the elder sister- Anamika of the deceased under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has made allegations against the applicants regarding demand of dowry of Rs.50,00,000/- and cruelty with her but there is no mention that as to why statement of the sister of the deceased was recorded again when her first statement was already recorded. It is further contended that so far as the allegation made in the FIR as well as charge sheet is concerned, there is no evidence against the applicants for facilitating the co- accused- Sanjay Bais (husband of the deceased) in commission of murder of the deceased. The applicants were living separately and they have no role either directly or indirectly with the family affairs of the deceased and her husband. Only on the basis of vague allegations, the prosecution story has been developed by the prosecution just to implicate the present applicants. On the alleged dated of incident, applicant No.1 was working in Shivpuri Medical Collage whereas applicant No.2 was working as Common Health Centre Almora, therefore, their involvement in the crime is highly doubtful 5 and their presence is very unnatural. At the time of preparation of spot map only fingerprint of husband of the deceased was found and no other incriminating materials have been seized from the possession of the applicants. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order of framing charges.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions so advanced by the applicants by submitting that at this stage no interference is warranted. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this criminal revision.
5. So far as order of framing charges is concerned, the law has been laid down by the Apex Court in the matters of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135; and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4 wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court that if materials so collected by the prosecution simply raised a suspicion against accused, the trial Court is bound to discharge the accused as in the circumstances the charges have to be treated as groundless.
6. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court as cited above as well as the materials so collected by the prosecution, this Court is of the view that no offence is made out against the applicants. Accordingly, present criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order of framing charges dated 03/09/2022 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in S.T. No.44/2022 is hereby set-aside and the present applicants are 6 discharged from the charges so levelled against them.
7. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information and compliance.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH RAHUL SINGH mkb/rahul GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676 d0cde4dee473fe77953f5, PARIHAR pseudonym=68E0B84BAE73376CD071289B3D9FE728CE00D 487, serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED910F D4AB9D159B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2023.04.10 15:43:05 +05'30'