Shrimati Raveendra Kaur Alias ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2069 MP

  :: 1 :: Cr.R.No.886/2020 (Smt. Raveendra Kaur alias Raveena Vs.
                           State of M.P. )



             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :

                           BENCH AT GWALIOR

                      Criminal Revision No.886/2020

       Smt. Raveendra Kaur alias Raveena ...PETITIONER

                                      versus

       State of Madhya Pradesh                       ...RESPONDENT

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM :

Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishal Mishra

Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V.K. Agarwal,

learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Atul Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on            :      1.3.2021 28.10.2015

Date of decision :            31/05/2021

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   ORDER

(31/05/2021) Per Vishal Mishra , J.

(1) The petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision under Section

397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated :: 2 :: Cr.R.No.886/2020 (Smt. Raveendra Kaur alias Raveena Vs. State of M.P. )

9.1.2020 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge Dabra, District

Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.92/2019, whereby the charge under

section 306 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner.

(2) It is alleged that FIR was got registered at Crime No.327 of

2019 in Police Station Bhitarwar, District Gwalior on 1.9.2019 with

respect to a death said to have taken place on 2.4.2018 and the Merg

Intimation of which was given to the Police Authorities on 3.4.2018

and thereafter for the first time the original Merg was registered by

the Police Station Bhitarwar on 26.9.2018 and after holding an

inquiry into the matter the FIR was registered. It is submitted that

looking to the contents of the FIR prima facie no offence under

section 306 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted

that the original Merg was got registered after more than five months

of the alleged incident. On the basis of this the FIR has been

registered on 1.9.2019 after 1 ½ years of the alleged incident and

there is no explanation for the delay by the prosecution. It is argued

that the copy of the charge-sheet has been filed along with the

petition.

(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this

Court to the First Information Report, which shows that the

intimation of death of Amrit Pal on 2.4.2018 at 4:45 PM in Sahara

Hospital, Jhansi Road, Gwalior was immediately given to the police :: 3 :: Cr.R.No.886/2020 (Smt. Raveendra Kaur alias Raveena Vs. State of M.P. )

authorities on 3.4.2018 on the basis of which the Merg was registered

at No.026/2018. The postmortem of the dead body was got conducted

by the police authorities on 3.4.2018. The postmortem report was

issued and the cause of death was shown to be cardio respiratory

failure as a result of ingestion of poisonous substance. Thereafter

the viscera was preserved for sending it for chemical analysis. It is

submitted that after registration of the Merg, the police authorities has

kept mum for a considerable period and for the first time on

12.12.2018 the viscera and other articles were sent to Regional Legal

Scientific Laboratory for investigation. It is further pointed out that

as the place of incident comes under the jurisdiction of Police Station

Bhitarwar, therefore, the actual Merg was registered at Merg

No.47/2018 at Police Station Bhitarwar on 26.9.2018. It is

submitted that the Police Authorities have not given any explanation

for keeping the matter pending from 3.4.2018 to 26.9.2018 at Police

Station Jhansi Road, despite of the fact that the actual place of

incident was Bhitarwar and the matter should have been immediately

sent for investigation in Police Station Bhitarwar, but the same was

sent for the first time on 26.9.2018 as per the FIR itself, on the basis

of which Merg number 47/2018 was got registered. Thereafter the

statements of witnesses have been recorded. It is further submitted

that even after receiving of the case on 26.9.2018 at Police Station :: 4 :: Cr.R.No.886/2020 (Smt. Raveendra Kaur alias Raveena Vs. State of M.P. )

Bhitarwar the statement of witnesses have been recorded after a

considerable delay. The statement were recorded on 2.9.2019 of

Daljeet Singh S/o Santosh Singh, Harjeet Singh S/o Santosh Singh

and Dilshad Singh S/o Harjeet Singh, thereafter on 6.9.2019 Santosh

Singh S/o Late Mohar Singh and thereafter on 23.10.2019 the

statement of Sonu Parihar was taken. Janved Singh, Gurdeep Singh ,

Pratipal Singh, Smt. Satyajeet Singh Kaur and Baljeet Singh all

relatives and family members of the deceased. No explanation is

given by the prosecution for recording the statement belatedly. The

report from the Forensic Lab was received on 28.12.2018 and was

handed over to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior and it was

found that in Article A and B presence of aluminum phosphate

pesticide was found and Article C does not contain any chemical

poison. Article A and B were marked as viscera of deceased Amrit

Pal. Despite of the same the prosecution has shown its lethargic

attitude conducted investigation with lethargy and has got recorded

the statements of witnesses for the first time in the month of

September and October, 2019. It is argued that even from the perusal

of the statement of witnesses no offence under section 306 of IPC is

made out against the present petitioner as none of the witnesses have

stated that the petitioner has given any instigation at any point of time

to the deceased which have forced the deceased to take such a step to :: 5 :: Cr.R.No.886/2020 (Smt. Raveendra Kaur alias Raveena Vs. State of M.P. )

commit suicide. All the statements points out that there was love

affair between the petitioner and the deceased and the petitioner used

to ask the deceased to marry him, but none of the witnesses have

clearly stated that what instigation was given by the petitioner to the

deceased for which he has taken such a fatal step of committing

suicide. It is argued that the instigation and mens rea are the prime

components for constituting an offence under section 306 of IPC

against the petitioner. He has relied upon the judgments passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan v. The State,

AIR 2011 SC 1238, Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 327 and Rajesh vs. State of Haryana AIR

2019 SC 478. It is submitted that even if the entire prosecution

story is taken in toto then also no offence under section 306 of IPC is

made out. He has prayed for quashment of the charges and the entire

charge-sheet against the petitioner as no offence under section 306 of

IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(4) Per contra counsel appearing for the State has vehemently

opposed the petition and has submitted that no case for quashment of

the charges is made out as from the facts and circumstances of the

case as the learned Trial Court has prima facie found that the offence

under section 306 of IPC is made out against the petitioner looking to

the evidence available on record. It is argued that if the entire :: 6 :: Cr.R.No.886/2020 (Smt. Raveendra Kaur alias Raveena Vs. State of M.P. )

prosecution case is seen then each and every witness whose

statements have been recorded have categorically stated that the

petitioner was having a love affair with the deceased and was in

continuous talking terms with the deceased. There is every

possibility that she must have asked her to marry him and on

refusal such words must have been uttered by her which have forced

the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution has rightly

conducted the investigation and has submitted the charge-sheet.

After going through the entire charge-sheet the learned Trial Court

has found that the offence under section 306 of IPC is made out

looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the case

has been registered against the present petitioner for offence under

section 306 of IPC. It is argued that High Court normally should

not indulgence in quashment of the charge-sheet if prima facie the

Trial Court is of opinion that the offence is made out against the

present petitioner. In such circumstances, no case is made out for

quashment of charges and the criminal proceedings against the

present petitioner. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(5) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

(6) From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that there is some :: 7 :: Cr.R.No.886/2020 (Smt. Raveendra Kaur alias Raveena Vs. State of M.P. )

delay on the part of the prosecution to complete the investigation and

submit the charge-sheet. Initially Merg was got registered on

3.4.2018 as soon as intimation with respect to the death of Amritpal

was received to Police Station Jhansi Road from Sahara Hospital.

Thereafter the postmortem of the body was got conducted by the

police authorities and the viscera was collected and protected and

the matter was kept pending. After three-four months as the actual

place of incident was at Bhitarwar the matter was transferred to

Police Station Bhitarwar which was received in the month of

September, 2018. The Police Station Bhitarwar has kept the matter

pending for a considerable time and has got recorded the statement of

witnesses in the month of September and October, 2019. And after

completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed. During the

investigation the report from the Analyst was received which has

pointed out that Article A and B contains presence of aluminum

phosphate was found and a pesticide. And Article C does not

contain any chemical poison. The cause of death reported to be

cardio respiratory failure as a result of injection of some poisonous

substance. The statements of witness recorded during the

investigation has clearly deposed that the petitioner was having a

love affair with the deceased Amrit Pal and they were in regular

talking terms. The CDR collected during investigation shows that :: 8 :: Cr.R.No.886/2020 (Smt. Raveendra Kaur alias Raveena Vs. State of M.P. )

the deceased was in regular contact with the petitioner.

(7) As far as framing of charges under section 306 of IPC is

concerned, it is settled preposition of law held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Bhawana Bai Vs. Ghanshyam and

others, reported in 2020 (1) JLJ 381 wherein the Larger Bench of

the Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge

only prima facie case is to be seen whether the case is beyond the

reasonable doubt is not required to be seen at this stage. The Court

has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the

accused. It has further observed that while evaluating the material

available on record collected by the investigating agency strict

standard of proof is not required to be seen. The judge is not required

to go into detail and record detailed reason for framing charges

against the accused. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra and

another, 2012 (9) SCC 460.

(8) The aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was

followed in the case of Dinesh Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

and another, (2014) 13 SCC 137, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that for framing charges under section 228 of Cr.P.C.

the judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such

charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing of parties, if the :: 9 :: Cr.R.No.886/2020 (Smt. Raveendra Kaur alias Raveena Vs. State of M.P. )

judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming

that the accused has committed the offence triable by the Court of

Session, he shall frame the charge against the accused for such

offence.

(9) In the present case the learned Trial Court at the stage of

framing of charges has found that on perusal of the material available

on record, the case is made out against the present petitioner and

accordingly charges under section 306 of IPC has been framed.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

judgments the charges framed by the learned Trial Court appears to

be rightly framed. No illegality is committed by the learned Trial

Court.

(10) The revision petition filed by the petitioner sans merit and is

accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(11) Let the order be communicated to the Superintendent of

Police, Gwalior to look into the case and take appropriate action

against the concerning for the delay in investigation.

(Vishal Mishra) Judge 31/05/2021

Pawar*

ASHISH PAWAR 2021.06.02 16:34:38 +05'30'