Ramniwas vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4599 Raj

[2023/RJJD/015275]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 441/2023

Ramniwas S/o Shivkaran, Aged About 40 Years, Rora, P.s. Nokha, Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Bhagwana Ram S/o Ruparam Bishnoi, Rk Puram, Nokha, Bikaner.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Parvej Moyal
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Javeed Gauri, PP



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                       Order

15/05/2023

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition

petitioner has challenged the order framing charge dated

21.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions

Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Criminal Case

No.23/2021 by which charges have been framed against the

petitioner for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of the

IPC.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that Jasoda-wife of

the petitioner allegedly committed suicide with her minor son

Aarth aged 5 years by jumping into a water tank. There are

allegations that she was perturbed due to cruel behavior of her

husband-petitioner and other members of her in-laws family. It is

reported in the FIR that few days prior to the incident; the

deceased Jasoda felt humiliated on account of maltreatment

[2023/RJJD/015275] (2 of 4) [CRLR-441/2023]

meted out to her in a community gathering at village Roda

wherefrom, she came alone to her brother's house and on the

very next day, she committed suicide. The evidence collected by

the agency during investigation, prima facie clearly shows the

allegations of cruelty, maltreatment towards the deceased. Her

death other than in normal circumstance is not in dispute.

2. Shri Parvej Moyal, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would submit that the ingredients essential to constitute

an offence under Sections 306 & 498-A of the IPC are blatantly

missing in the present facts of the case; no immediate cause has

been shown which may have instigated the deceased to end her

life; She died at her brother's house, therefore, the liability cannot

be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has placed

reliance upon the recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Kashibai & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.8584/2022 decided on

28.02.2023 and in the matter of Ashish Kumar Rajwade @

Rinku Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Revision No.12/2022

decided on 13.05.2022).

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner and would submit that ample evidence is thereon record

to show the complicity of the petitioner in the crime which are

sufficient to frame charges and for commencement of the trial.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the challan papers.

5. True, it is that for imposing a charge under Section 306 of

the IPC, there must be some evidence with regard to the

[2023/RJJD/015275] (3 of 4) [CRLR-441/2023]

instigation or intentional error on the part of the accused for the

purpose of proving charge for the aforesaid section. The

instigation must be of such nature which aid to drive a person to

commit suicide. At the same time, the degree of appreciation and

the standard of proof required at the stage for framing of charge

cannot be lost sight. It is neigh well settled that at the stage of

framing charges, the Court is not expected to examine the

prosecution evidence meticulously or not supposed to made a

threadbare discussion so as to examine that whether the evidence

is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused or not. The

prima facie and tentative value of the material placed on record

has to be seen and wherefrom the Court is expected to form an

opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to presume

the accused to be guilty of the offences charged and for that he

should be tried or not.

6. Few facts are conspicuously present on the face of the record

viz., petitioner is the husband of the deceased; there are

allegations of continuous harassment and cruel behaviour upon

her; there is statement of none other than his daughter to the

effect that her father used to subject the deceased to cruelty; she

was very perturbed. In view of the evidence of cruelty available on

record, from which prima facie it can be presumed that the act of

cruelty instigated her to commit suicide and the degree of cruelty

was so high that even she took his five years son along with her

and commit suicide as a result thereof, both mother and minor

son succumbed to the drowning. The Postmortem report also

reveals cause of death as drowning. Thus, prima faice, there are

reasonable grounds to presume that the petitioner should be

[2023/RJJD/015275] (4 of 4) [CRLR-441/2023]

directed to go through the trial. The evidence brought on record

is not required to be discussed at this stage. The judgment cited

by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Kashibai

(Supra) does not help him. The aforesaid judgment pertains to an

appeal against the judgment of conviction. Ofcourse, the

standard of proof required for conviction is altogether different

than to the stage of framing charge, therefore, the judgment

relied upon by the counsel does not help him. The other case on

which reliance has been placed is delivered by the High Court of

Chhatishgarh in the case of Ashish Kumar Rajkwade @ Rinku

(Supra) having a different set of facts where only a single

circumstance of rebuking was available and therefore, the High

Court of Chhatishgarh held that the evidence available on record

in that case was not sufficient for framing charge under Section

306 of the IPC. Here in the case, there is ample evidence

regarding continuous cruelty and maltreatment meted out to the

deceased for last 13-14 years as well as the witnesses have stated

in unequivocal terms that deceased was maltreated even prior to

the day of her committing suicide. She was humiliated between

the society at Village Roda thus, the facts of the present case are

entirely distinguishable than to the case relied upon.

7. Hence, there is no force in this criminal revision petition, the

same deserves dismissal.

8. Dismissed accordingly.

(FARJAND ALI),J 15-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)