Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Kumar Trivedi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2021
1 Cr. Rev. No.375 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 375 of 2006
(Against the order dated 11.05.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Latehar in Sessions Trial No.33 of 2004)
Mukesh Kumar Trivedi S/o A.K. Trivedi, Resident of Laxmi Para Near 56
set, Doranda, P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : None
For the State : Addl. P.P.
.....
By the Court:-
1. No one turns up on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Perusal of the record reveals that this revision petition is
directed against the order dated 11.05.2006 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial No.33 of 2004 whereby and
whereunder, the learned trial court has been pleased to invoke the
power conferred under Section 216 Cr.P.C. and added the charge for
the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code as an
alternative charge.
3. Since, this is a year old case and the trial court record has been
called for and thus practically there is a stay of the proceedings in the
trial court by default, in absence of the case record, in this backdrop as
no one has turned up on behalf of the petitioner, this Court thinks it
proper to dispose of this criminal revision upon perusal of the record.
4. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that on 11.05.2006, the
accused was called in attendance and the trial was fixed for hearing of
the argument of the defence and during course of argument, the
learned court below found that there must be an alternative charge of
302 of Indian Penal Code and by invoking the power conferred under
Section 216 of Cr.P.C., it added the charge under Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code as an alternative charge and read over the charge to the
accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. As the new charge was added, so the learned trial court by the
impugned order also directed the defence to furnish the list of
witnesses they want to cross-examine, out of the witnesses earlier
examined in this case.
5. Perusal of the record further reveals that it has been averred
in the revision petition that the order passed by the trial court is
contrary to law and the learned trial court ought to have recorded
reasons for such addition of charge. Hence, the prayer has been made
to set aside the impugned order.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that originally the charge framed
against the petitioner was under Section 304B/34 and under Section
201/34 of Indian Penal Code.
7. The brief facts of the case is that the dead body of the
deceased was found between the cluster of bushes and it was
appearing that the deceased was strangulated and the dead body was
thrown in the cluster of bushes.
8. During the course of trial altogether 17 witnesses have been
examined. P.W.1- Fulwasi Tiwari-who is the mother of the deceased
has stated that five days after the marriage of the deceased, the
husband of the deceased went to Australia and the deceased used to
live with her father-in-law and mother-in-law and the deceased
solemnized love marriage with the petitioner. P.W.1 further stated that
the petitioner used to keep the deceased at Ranchi but the parents of
the petitioner were not happy with the deceased. The petitioner took
away Rs.3,50,000/- from the deceased for investing in his business. It is
then stated that the petitioner was supposed to marry the deceased on
09.06.2003 but he demanded Rs.2,00,000/- dowry from the P.W.1 and
the petitioner forcibly took the deceased who was pregnant. It is
further stated that the petitioner used to torture the deceased and on
25.06.2003, P.W.1 came to know that the deceased is missing from her
in-law's house and subsequently, her dead body was found under the
Chandwa Police Station and the dead body was identified by the
petitioner. It was claimed by P.W.1 inter alia that the petitioner
misappropriated the money of the deceased and committed her
murder.
9. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of
Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2004) 5 SCC 347, paragraph no.10 of which
is as under:-
"10. ....... If during trial the trial court [upon] a
consideration of broad probabilities of the case
based upon total effect of the evidence and
documents produced is satisfied that any addition
or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free
to do so ........".
10. In view of the fact that where a charge only under Section
304B is framed, it becomes difficult to convict the accused even if the
material on record clearly indicates commission of culpable homicide
amounting to murder. In order to obviate this difficulty, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajbir vs. State of Haryana
reported in AIR 2011 SC 568 gave the following directions :-
" ..... all trial courts in India to ordinarily add
section 302 to the charge of Section 304B, so that
death sentences can be imposed to in such
heinous and barbaric crimes against women
......"
11. Considering the settled principle of law and the facts of this
case, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in
the order dated 11.05.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Latehar in Sessions Trial No.33 of 2004 in framing an alternative charge
under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
12. Accordingly, this criminal revision being without any merit is
dismissed.
13. Let the Lower Court Records along with a copy of this
judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 9th April, 2021
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
