Trilok Chand Singhal & Others vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2010 Latest Caselaw 1372 Del

                                                           R-6 & 7


                  HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

                Judgment Reserved on: March 4, 2010

                Judgment Pronounced on: March 12, 2010


+               Criminal Revision Petition No. 152 of 2005


%       State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)              ......      Petitioner

                        Through:         Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional Public
                                         Prosecutor for respondent-State

                                         Vs.

        Rajnish Kumar Singhal & Others ........                Respondents

                        Through:         Mr. D.C. Mathur, Senior Advocate,
                                         with Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya & Mr.
                                         Narinder Chaudhary, Advocates

                                         &

                Criminal Revision Petition No. 300-303 of 2005


%       Trilok Chand Singhal & Others             ......       Petitioners

                        Through:         Mr. D.C. Mathur, Senior Advocate,
                                         with Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya & Mr.
                                         Narinder Chaudhary, Advocates

                                         Vs.

        State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi             ........      Respondent

                        Through:         Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional Public
                                         Prosecutor for respondent-State

Crl. Revision Petition No. 152 of 2005                                   Page 1
 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
  be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                  No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported
  in the Digest?

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. The above captioned two revision petitions are directed

against impugned order of 1st November, 2004, of the trial court

discharging the accused for the offence under Section 306 of the

IPC but calling upon them, to face trial for the offence under

Section 498-A of the IPC. State has come up in revision against

the impugned order of discharge for the offence under Section

306 of the IPC and the second revision petition is by the accused

persons i.e. parents-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased,

against the impugned order asking them to face trial for the

offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. Since both these petitions

arise out of common impugned order, therefore, they were heard

Crl. Revision Petition No. 152 of 2005 Page 2 together and are being disposed of together by this common

order.

2. Before proceeding further, the crux of the allegations

leveled against the accused of this case, as reflected in the FIR of

this case i.e. FIR No. 11 of 1996, under Sections 498-A/406 of the

IPC, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi (Annexure

C), needs to be taken note of and they are as under :-

The marriage in question is of the year 1996 and

incident is of January, 1996. After the marriage in question,

the deceased had come to know that her husband was a

drug addict and this fact was not disclosed to the family of

the deceased. For bringing less dowry, the deceased used

to be harassed and tortured by the accused of this case.

From time to time, several demands were made by the

accused, and some of them were fulfilled, so that the

marriage in question is not broken. For the last one year,

prior to this incident, behaviour of the accused became

cruel towards the deceased and the accused had started to

abuse and beat the deceased frequently and the deceased

was being taunted of having brought negligible dowry as Crl. Revision Petition No. 152 of 2005 Page 3 compared to the dowry brought by the younger brother of

the husband of the deceased.

3. During the investigation of this case, one suicide note is

said to have been recovered from the house of the accused,

which has a different story to tell. According to the suicide note

(Annexure-D), the deceased was suffering from one disease or

another and her health was not good and she was fed up with her

life and instead of dying daily, she chose to end her life by

consuming some poisonous substance. This suicide note gives a

clean chit to the accused by stating that the husband of the

deceased is nice and parents-in-law and brother-in-law of the

deceased take more care than her parents. This suicide note

(Annexure-D) was sent for comparison, first to CFSL, Delhi, who

had certified that the specimen handwriting of the deceased

matches with the handwriting on the suicide note (Annexure-D).

This suicide note (Annexure-D) was also got compared from a

private Handwriting Expert, whose report differed from the report

of the CFSL, Delhi. This led to sending of the suicide note

(Annexure-D) and the specimen handwriting of the deceased to

Government Examiner of Questioned Documents of Government

Crl. Revision Petition No. 152 of 2005 Page 4 of India, at Shimla, who in its report had agreed with the report of

the CFSL, Delhi.

4. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of

this Court that the suicide note (Annexure-D) is undated and the

contents of the suicide note (Annexure-D) are in different ink and

the signatures are in different ink and the admitted handwriting,

which was sent to the Government Handwriting Examiners, was

photocopy. These are matters which are required to be

considered at trial and not at this stage. Whether the deceased

was suffering from any ailment or what treatment she was

undergoing, is not forthcoming. In any case, the authenticity of

the suicide note (Annexure-D) has to be considered in the right

perspective at trial and in the considered opinion of this Court,

trial court has erred in prematurely prejudging it, before the trial

could even begin.

5. Trial court in the impugned order has relied upon the two

aforesaid handwriting reports of the government department and

has preferred to ignore the report of the private Handwriting

Expert and has chosen to give a clean chit to the accused of this

case for the main offence under Section 306 of the IPC. Out of the Crl. Revision Petition No. 152 of 2005 Page 5 aforesaid three reports, which report has to be believed and

which one is to be discarded, is the prerogative of the trial court

which has to be exercised after the evidence is recorded and

such an exercise cannot be undertaken at the threshold of the

trial. The trial court has relied upon a few decisions to indicate

that the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out. At

the stage of 'Charge', the prima facie case alone has to be seen

and it is a settled legal position that even on grave suspicion,

accused can be asked to face the trial. For taking this view, the

apt observations made in "Onhkar Nath Mishra & Othersw v.

State (NCT of Delhi) & Another' (2008) 2 SCC 561 can be

referred with advantage and the same are as under:-

"It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground

Crl. Revision Petition No. 152 of 2005 Page 6 for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."

6. The contention of learned Senior counsel for the accused

that handwriting reports of two government agencies have been

rightly preferred by the trial Court, over and above report of

private hand writing expert, does not appeal to me, for the

reason that evidentiary value of suicide note (Annexure-D) is yet

to be established, in view of the contradictory reports. Much had

been said by learned Senior counsel for the accused regarding

allegations leveled being vague but not much ought be said on

this aspect as clearly FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia

and facts can be always elaborated.

7. In the opinion of this Court, a prima facie case is made out

requiring trial in this case, in as much as necessitating suicide

note being proved on record and thereafter only, it can be

considered viz-a-viz evidence of the family of the deceased.

Crl. Revision Petition No. 152 of 2005 Page 7 Impugned order, discharging the accused for the offence under

Section 306 of the IPC, is clearly unsustainable and is accordingly

set aside to this extent only. So far as the petition of the accused

against the impugned order requiring accused to face the trial for

the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, is concerned, the

nature of allegations made in the FIR, as referred to above are

prima facie sufficient to sustain the impugned order in this

regard. The resultant effect of the aforesaid narration is that the

revision of the State succeeds whereas of the accused fails.

8. Interim order stands vacated. Trial court record be sent

back forthwith for being proceeded in accordance with the law.

9. Both these petitions and pending applications are

accordingly disposed of while making it clear that anything stated

herein shall have no reflection on the merits of this case at trial.

Sunil Gaur, J.

March 12, 2010
rs




Crl. Revision Petition No. 152 of 2005                                   Page 8