Rohit Kumar vs State Of J&K
2021 Latest Caselaw 453 j&K

                                       =h475




              HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                         AT JAMMU

                                               Reserved on : 05.04.2021
                                               Pronounced on: 08.04.2021

                                                   CRMC No.245/2017
                                                   IA No.1/2017


Rohit Kumar                                                       ...Petitioner(s)

                            Through:- Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate
      V/s

State of J&K                                                    ...Respondent(s)
                           Through:- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJY DHAR, JUDGE

                                  JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 27.12.2016 passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby charges for

offence under Sections 294/506/509/306 RPC have been framed against

the petitioner.

2. Before coming to the grounds of challenge, let me give a

brief background of the facts leading to the filing of this petition.

3. A charge-sheet came to be filed by the police of Police

Station, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu before the learned trial Court. The said

proceedings arose out of FIR No.113/2015. As per the allegations made

in the charge-sheet, petitioner-accused used to stalk the deceased and he

would often hurl obscene remarks upon her. It was further alleged that

the accused-petitioner would pressurize the deceased to go with him and

when the deceased declined to do so, the petitioner-accused defamed her

and this caused great anxiety to her. Because the deceased did not

succumb to the tactics of the petitioner-accused, he would call her as an

ill charactered lady and he would also call her son a drug addict and her

mother-in-law as a lady of bad repute. On the date of occurrence i.e.

19.09.2015, the accused-petitioner called the deceased a prostitute. The

deceased could not bear it anymore and she committed suicide by putting

herself on fire after pouring kerosene oil upon her body.

4. As per the prosecution case, the statement of the deceased

was recorded in the hospital while she was undergoing treatment in

presence of the witnesses and in her statement she narrated the

allegations as mentioned herein before. On the basis of her statement,

FIR came to be registered and after investigation of the case, offences

under Sections 294/506/509/306 RPC were found established against the

petitioner against whom the challan came to be filed before the learned

Trial Court.

5. It appears that the learned Trial Court after hearing the

learned defense counsel as well as the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State and after perusal of the material on record came

to the conclusion that there are grounds to presume that the accused has

committed offence under Sections 294/506/509/306 RPC. Accordingly,

vide the impugned order charges for aforesaid offences were framed

against the petitioner. It is this order, which is under challenge before this

Court.

6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the

grounds that the FIR and the material on record of the challan do not

make out any offence against the petitioner; that ingredients of the

offences with which the petitioner has been charged are not made out

from the material on record; that there is no material on record to show

that the petitioner had any active involvement in commission of suicide

by the deceased; that the material on record shows that the suicide of the

deceased is not direct result of the alleged acts of the petitioner.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned counsel for the State. I have also gone through the material on

record including the trial Court record.

8. Section 268 and Section 269 of J&K Criminal Procedure

Code lay down the procedure for discharging/framing of charge against

the accused. These provisions read as under:-

"265. Discharge If upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."

269. Framing of charge (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which--

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he may frame charge against the accused and by order,

transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any Judicial Magistrate competent to try the case, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any Judicial Magistrate to whom a case may have been transferred shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure provided for the trial of warrant cases instituted on police report.

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1) the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."

9. A conjoint reading of Sections 268 and 269 of J&K Cr.P.C.

reveals that if the Sessions Judge, upon consideration of record of the

case and after hearing the parties, finds that there is no sufficient ground

for proceeding against the accused, an order of discharge has to follow

and if, upon consideration of aforesaid material, the Sessions Judge finds

that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an

offence triable by the Court, framing of charge has to follow.

10. Now coming to the facts of the instant case, the allegation

against the petitioner-accused is that he used to tease the deceased

inasmuch as he would hurl abuses upon her, make obscene remarks

against her, defame her by calling her a prostitute and a woman of ill

character. Besides this, he would even defame the son and mother-in-law

of the deceased. These allegations are supported by the statement of the

deceased, which she made in the hospital just before her death. The said

statement is admissible in evidence as 'dying declaration' in terms of

Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Besides this, there are statements of

witnesses comprising family members and neighbourers of the deceased,

who have also supported the version given by the deceased in her 'dying

declaration'. Statement of Naresh Kumar, the son of the deceased, has

been recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. and he has also supported the

case of the prosecution.

11. In the face of aforesaid overwhelming material on record, it

cannot be stated that the allegations made in the charge-sheet against the

petitioner are without any substance.

12. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that there is no material on record to show that the

petitioner has taken any active part in instigating the deceased for

committing suicide and, as such, no offence is made out against him. The

submission of the learned counsel is without any merit because there is

overwhelming evidence on record to show that the petitioner would

harass and tease the deceased almost on daily basis and he would defame

her by calling her a lady of ill repute and a prostitute. It is on account of

these activities of the petitioner that the deceased was driven to commit

suicide.

13. At the stage of framing of the charge, even a strong

suspicion against the accused is good enough to frame charge against

him. In the present case, there is not only strong suspicion but

overwhelming material on record to prove the complicity of the

petitioner-accused. Therefore, there was no alternative left with the

learned Trial Court but to frame the charges against the petitioner.

14. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this

petition. The impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court does not

call for any interference. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge JAMMU.

08.04.2021 Vinod.

Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

VINOD KUMAR 2021.04.08 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document