Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ayon Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 April, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 5th OF APRIL, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4628 of 2022
Between:-
1. AYON SHARMA S/O ANUKUL SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION- SURGEON, R/O BASANT
VIHAR COLONY, LASHKAR, DISTRICT-
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. NEHA W/O AYON SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GYNAECOLOGIST 89 GANGANAGAL
DEWAS DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI RAJMANI BANSAL- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION-
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, DISTRICT-
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ANAMIKA THAKUR, D/O MADHAV
SINGH THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PATWARI RAJA BILHERA
POLICE STATION- SURKHI DISTRICT-
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
........RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
This revision coming on for hearing, this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under
Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 03/09/2022
passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, District- Gwalior (M.P.) in S.T.
No.44/2022 by which Sessions Judge has framed charges under Sections
302, 498-A, 304-B and 201 of IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
against the applicants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that police received an information that a
half burnt dead body is lying near Kailash Vihar Colony and after receiving
such information, police reached the spot and found the dead body which
was brought to the dead house of J.A. Hospital for conduction of
postmortem. Thereafter, merg No.03/2021 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.
was recorded. During merg inquiry, dead-body was identified by Anamika
D/o Madhav Singh Thakur as her elder sister- Surya Singh who got
married to one Sanjay Singh Bais, one and a half year ago. After
marriage, Sanjay Singh stopped deceased- Surya Singh to visit her
maternal house, due to which, some quarrel started taking place between
them. On 15/01/2021, Anamika doubted that something went wrong with
her elder sister- Surya Singh when she did not talk with her. The deceased
was also absent from her office. Thereafter, she alongwith her family
members came to Gwalior and identified the dead body of her sister
Surya Singh and suspected on husband of the deceased. Thereafter, FIR
bearing Crime No.26/2021 was registered against Sanjay Singh, who is
the husband of the deceased for the offence under Sections 302, 201 of
IPC and investigation was commenced. As per postmortem report, cause
of death of deceased is homicidal in nature. Deceased died within 36-48
hours since postmortem examination. Viscera has been preserved and sent
for chemical analysis. During merg enquiry, statements of maternal side
of the deceased were recorded, in which they have stated that husband-
Sanjay Singh of the deceased, mother-in-law- Manorama, and present
applicants who are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively used
to demand the dowry and harass her with cruelty. Thereafter, offence
under Sections 498-A & 304-B of IPC were added against the applicants
and other co-accused. Thereafter, vide impugned order, learned Sessions
Judge has framed charges under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B and 201 of
IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants and other
co-accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for applicants submited that offence punishable
under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC are not made out as the basic
ingredients necessary for even prima facie establishment of these offences
are missing from the allegations contained in the prosecution story against
the applicants and relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Ravikant
Dubey & ors. Vs. State of M.P. & ors. (2014) 2 MPHT 449. It is further
submitted that initially in merg statements, there is no allegations against the
applicants. Even in the first statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
on 17/01/2021 who is the sister of the deceased, there is no allegation
against the applicants, either there is any presence of the applicants at the
time of incident or there was any threat given by them to the deceased with
dire consequences. After one month i.e. 15/2/2021, again the statement of
the elder sister- Anamika of the deceased under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was
recorded in which she has made allegations against the applicants regarding
demand of dowry of Rs.50,00,000/- and cruelty with her but there is no
mention that as to why statement of the sister of the deceased was recorded
again when her first statement was already recorded. It is further contended
that so far as the allegation made in the FIR as well as charge sheet is
concerned, there is no evidence against the applicants for facilitating the co-
accused- Sanjay Bais (husband of the deceased) in commission of murder of
the deceased. The applicants were living separately and they have no role
either directly or indirectly with the family affairs of the deceased and her
husband. Only on the basis of vague allegations, the prosecution story has
been developed by the prosecution just to implicate the present applicants.
On the alleged dated of incident, applicant No.1 was working in Shivpuri
Medical Collage whereas applicant No.2 was working as Common Health
Centre Almora, therefore, their involvement in the crime is highly doubtful
and their presence is very unnatural. At the time of preparation of spot map
only fingerprint of husband of the deceased was found and no other
incriminating materials have been seized from the possession of the
applicants. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order of framing
charges.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions so
advanced by the applicants by submitting that at this stage no interference
is warranted. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this criminal revision.
5. So far as order of framing charges is concerned, the law has been laid
down by the Apex Court in the matters of Sajjan Kumar v. Central
Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Dilawar Balu Kurane v.
State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135; and Union of India v. Prafulla
Kumar Samal & Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4 wherein it has been observed by the
Apex Court that if materials so collected by the prosecution simply raised a
suspicion against accused, the trial Court is bound to discharge the accused
as in the circumstances the charges have to be treated as groundless.
6. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court as cited above as
well as the materials so collected by the prosecution, this Court is of the
view that no offence is made out against the applicants. Accordingly, present
criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order of framing charges
dated 03/09/2022 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.)
in S.T. No.44/2022 is hereby set-aside and the present applicants are
discharged from the charges so levelled against them.
7. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
information and compliance.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
RAHUL SINGH
mkb/rahul
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676
d0cde4dee473fe77953f5,
PARIHAR
pseudonym=68E0B84BAE73376CD071289B3D9FE728CE00D
487,
serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED910F
D4AB9D159B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH
PARIHAR
Date: 2023.04.10 15:43:05 +05'30'
