Madhya Pradesh High Court
Guddu @ Vinay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
ON THE 4th OF APRIL, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3588 of 2021
Between:-
1. GUDDU @ VINAY S/O SHRI NATTHU CHOUBEY ,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
JOB R/O RAMNAGAR POLICE STATION KALINJER,
DISTRICT BANDA U.P. (UTTAR PRADESH)
2. JHALLU @ AJAY S/O SHRI NATTHU CHOUBEY ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
JOB RAMNAGAR POLICE STATION DHARAMPUR,
DISTT. PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KALLU @ VIJAY CHOUBEY S/O SHRI NATTHU
CHOUBEY , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB RAMNAGAR POLICE STATION
KALINJER, DISTT. BANDA, U.P. (UTTAR PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(By Shri Siddharth Datt and Shri Neeraj Shah, learned counsels)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION DHARAMPUR, AJAYGARH,
DISTT. PANNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NATTHU PRAJAPATI S/O NOT KNOWN , AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT MENTION
VILLAGE RAMNAGAR, P.S. DHARAMPUR, DISTT.
PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(Respondent no.1-State by Shri Narendra Chaurasiya, learned Government
Advocate)
T h is appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants herein who are
aggrieved by the order dated 16.4.2021 (Annexure A-01) by which charges were
framed against the appellants for offences under sections 302 IPC and 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Signature Not Verified
1989 (for short, "the Act").
SAN
As per the case of the prosecution, the appellants herein are alleged to have
Digitally signed by PRASHANT
SHRIVASTAVA
Date: 2022.04.05 12:01:30 IST
poured kerosene on the deceased on 14.3.2020 at about 2:00 p.m. and set the
deceased Prema Bai on fire on account of which she succumbed to her injuries on
8.4.2020. The second charge is for having committed the offence punishable under
section 302 IPC against a member of the SC/ST community, which constituted an
offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial court fell into
error in charging the appellants for the said offence and even if the entire case of
prosecution is taken as admitted for the sake of an argument, the offence under
section 302 IPC is not made out. An application under section 227/228 was filed
before the learned trial court for the sake of securing a discharge on behalf of the
appellants herein. While passing the said order, the trial court went through the
entire material along with the charge-sheet. It also took into cognizance and gave a
prima facie appreciation to the dying declaration that was filed along with the
charge sheet of the deceased. It held that the deceased Prema Bai's dying
declaration was in question and answer form and to the question as to who had
poured kerosene oil over her, the deceased answered "Kallu, Guddu, Jhallu". To
another question, the deceased replied that appellant Guddu struck a match and set
her on fire. To another question, the deceased replied that the appellants herein
caught hold of her and set her on fire. It further took into consideration that in the
post-mortem report, the cause of death is given as myocardial infarction and its
consequences and, therefore, it held that prima facie the death of the deceased
was caused on account of the heart attack and its consequences. It was also
argued before the learned trial court at the stage of framing charges that the
deceased was not a member of the SC/ST community to which, the learned trial
court has arrived at a prima facie finding that the father of the deceased had three
children out of which the deceased Prema Bai was a daughter. The two sons had
duly been issued caste certificates which showed them as the members of the
Scheduled Castes. Under the circumstances, learned trial court came to a prima
facie finding that the deceased being the sister, her caste would also be the same
and, therefore, the offences under the SC/ST Act would also be made out.
Signature Not Verified
SAN Learned counsel for the appellants has argued by drawing attention to the
Digitally signed by PRASHANT
SHRIVASTAVA
Date: 2022.04.05 12:01:30 IST
post-mortem report that the case of death being myocardial infarction and its
consequences, the offence would not be under section 302 IPC but one under
section 304-II IPC. He further submitted that there was a gap of more than 15 days
between the incident and the death of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed before this court the
orders passed in the bail applications moved by them wherein it was argued that
the offence may be one under section 304-II and not under section 302 IPC. That
was the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. Undoubtedly, the
appellants herein were granted the benefit of bail. However, the consideration for
grant of bail and for framing of charges or granting a discharge are entirely
different. At the stage of framing charges, learned trial court has only has to see
whether there is a triable issue before it or whether the entire case of the
prosecution taken and admitted as true, does not even make out a prima facie case
against the appellants and besides raising a suspicion, fails to raise a strong
suspicion with regard to their involvement in the case.
Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that in the FIR, the
deceased
(ATUL SREEDHARAN)
JUDGE
ps
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PRASHANT
SHRIVASTAVA
Date: 2022.04.05 12:01:30 IST
