Shri Mohan Chand Kholia vs State
2002 Latest Caselaw 1552 Del

JUDGMENT

O.P. Dwivedi, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 30.03.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Delhi for framing charges against the petitioner under Section 498A and 306 IPC being prima facie of the view that from the statement of deceased Smt. Bhagwati Kholia made before her death, the appellant should be tried for the said offences.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Bhagwati Kholia was brought to the hospital with burn injuries on 20.8.2000. She gave her statement to the Police wherein she stated that she was married to the petitioner 12 years back. Her husband/ petitioner used to suspect her character and used to quarrel with her every day. On the day of incident at about 6 a.m. when she came down stairs with her children, the petitioner started abusing her. Her brother Ashok who also resides in the same area was called and after some time her brother Ashok went out of the house and the petitioner also went out. The petitioner came back after some time and abused her saying 'Randi, Tu Mar Kyo Nahi Jati'. Thereafter she locked herself and bolted the room and set herself on fire after pouring kerosene oil. On this statement of Bhagwati Kholia, a case under Section 498A, IPC was registered vide FIR No. 370/2000. Bhagwati Kholia died in the hospital on 21.8.2000 so Section 306 IPC was also added to the FIR. On completion of the investigations challan under Section 498A/306 IPC was filed against the petitioner. After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, arguments on charge were heard and vide impugned order dated 30.3.2002, learned ASJ held that prima facie a case under Section 498A and 306 IPC is made out against the petitioner-accused. He was charged accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

3. The question as to what considerations should weigh with the Court at the time of considering the question of framing of charge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has repeatedly engaged the attention of Hon'ble Supreme Court on different occasions. Recently in the case of Smt. Om Wati and Anr. v. State, through Delhi Admn. and Ors. 2001 (2) Crimes 59 (SC), the apex Court while referring to its earlier decision on the point in the case Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. v. State of West Bengal, ; Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and Anr., and State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, ; Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 52 and Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, , held that at this stage the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt of otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of framing charges. Even a strong suspicion on the basis of the material before it can lead the Court to form a presumptive opinion regarding existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in that case, the court will be justified in framing charge against the accused. The apex Court further cautioned the High Court of their statutory obligation to avoid interference at the initial stage of framing of charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to some decisions in the case of State v. Madan Lal Khurana and Ors. - II (2000) CCR 315; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh-2001 CRI.I.J. 4724 (SC); Hira Lal Jain v. State-2001 CRI L.J. 1212; Bommidi Rajamallu v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2001 CRI.L.J. 1319. Out of these case, the case of Ramesh Kumar and Bommidi Rajamallu (supra) were decided after full trial and not at the stage of charge. Obviously the consideration which will weigh with the Court at the stage of final decision of case will not be the same as those at the stage of charge. The case of Madan Lal Khurana (supra) under the Prevention of Corruption Act was based on the cryptic entries made in the diary of Mr. J.K. Jain and the Court after considering all the material on record, came to the conclusion that even if all the material collected by the investigation agency is taken to be proved, it does not make out the offence alleged. In the case of Hira Lal Jain (supra) an employee had committed suicide because of the harassment by the employer/ petitioner but there was nothing on record to show that there was any direct act of instigation/ abatement or conspiracy on the part of the petitioner to induce the deceased to commit suicide. Like wise in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), the deceased in her letter to the father indicated that she was pushed and turned out from the house. It was held that these acts do not amount to abatement to commit suicide. In the case of Rajamallu (supra) Statement of deceased wife in her dying declaration was that accused husband used to get drunk and beat her, it was held that these acts of the husband constituted cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC which does not amount to abatement of suicide. In the case of Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti v. State 2001 (1) Crimes 92 (Delhi) - the deceased lady had written two letters giving reasons why she had chosen to take the ultimate step to end her life. The material on record showed that the deceased was sensitive, religious and devoted person who was finding normal wear and tear of life difficult to cope with. There was no allegation of abatement of commit suicide on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the charges were quashed. On a careful reading of these decisions, it appears that what is important to be seen in such cases is that whether the abettor has intentionally instigated/ provoked commission of the suicide by the deceased. If there is material on record to show that the accused wanted the deceased person to end his/her life and with that end in view he makes his intention manifest by some overt act either by word of mouth of foul speech coupled with some act of conspiracy, instigation, provocation leading the deceased to end her/his life, the case will be within the ambit of Section 306 IPC. In the present case in her statement made to the Police Bhagwati Kholia stated that she set herself on fire only due to instigation/ provocation by her husband. From her statement, it appears that petitioner used to suspect her character and used filthy language to provoke her to die. On the day of incident he abused her saying "Bloody whore, why do not you die." This could be a serious provocation for any self respecting woman to take the extreme step particularly when such a provocation/instigation comes from none other than her own husband. Moreover, under Section 498A IPC any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grievous injury or danger to her life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) would amount to cruelty. Deceased lady was abused and insulted in presence of her brother followed by such filthy language questioning her character and asking her to die, would be sufficient prima facie to frame a charge under Section 498A-306 IPC. I find no justification for interfering with the impugned order.

4. In the result this revision petition fails and is dismissed. File be sent back to the trial Court at the earliest.