Hari Govind Singh, Hyderabad., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2910 Tel

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                   CRL.R.C.No.3191 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated

03.11.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.2084 of 2016 in Sessions Case No.256

of 2016, on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, wherein the said petition filed by the petitioner herein

seeking discharge was dismissed.

2. The petitioner is facing prosecution in S.C.No.256 of

2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 420 and 201

IPC. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner had

friendship with the deceased by name Kum.Sujatha from the year

2011. They developed intimacy and started loving each other.

The accused is alleged to have promised to marry the deceased.

Later, the accused rejected the marriage proposal and cheated the

deceased. Unable to tolerate the same, she committed suicide by

consuming poison on 07.02.2015. Subsequently, the deceased was

shifted Kingkoti hospital in an auto where she was declared

brought dead. Her funeral rites were conducted on 08.02.2015.

Later, the second respondent/complainant lodged a complaint

before police, who, in turn registered a case against the petitioner

in Cr.No.209 of 2015 for the offences as stated above. During the

course of investigation, the witnesses were examined and their

statements were recorded. After completion of investigation, the

police filed charge sheet against the petitioner and the same was

taken cognizance in P.R.C.No.5 of 2016 and later committed to

sessions court and numbered as S.C.No.256 of 2016.

3. During the pendency of the session case, the petitioner

filed petition in Crl.M.P.No.2084 of 2016 seeking discharge from

the offences punishable under Sections 306, 420 and 201 IPC on

the ground that there is no prima facie evidence in respect of

the offence under Section 306 IPC; that there is no post-mortem

examination being conducted; that there is no evidence that the

deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. It is further

stated in the petition that the doctor who examined the deceased

did not get any suspicion and as such the post-mortem was not

conducted. The death of the deceased was on 07.02.2015 and

the alleged complaint was lodged on 18.05.2015 with a delay of

100 days. There is no evidence of any kind to constitute the

offences alleged and that there is no sufficient material to frame

charges for the offences alleged.

4. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, having considered

the material available on record, by the order impugned in this

revision, dismissed the said petition holding that there is

prima facie material to frame charges against the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the material on record.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that

nothing is forthcoming from the statements of the witnesses and

the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet do not constitute

any of the offences alleged. He further contends that the deceased

has not taken any poison and no suspicion was expressed by the

doctor who examined the deceased and, therefore, no post-mortem

was conducted. On the suspicion expressed by the family members

of the deceased, the police registered a case against the petitioner

and there was inordinate delay of 100 days in filing the complaint.

The petitioner has nothing to do with the death of the deceased and

that he did not abet her to commit suicide. There is no sufficient

material to frame charges against the petitioner for the offences

alleged.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there is

prima facie material to frame the charge against the petitioner for

the alleged offences. She prays to dismiss the revision.

8. In SAJJAN KUMAR V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 of Cr.P.C.

21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:

(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

1 2010 (9)SCC 368

(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.

(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the

trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."

9. In general, the above principles are, in fact, mutatis mutandis

applicable while entertaining applications under Section 239

Cr.P.C. The trial Court while framing the charge has to invariably

go through the allegations of the complaint, F.I.R., charge sheet

and the statements of the witnesses and documents medical or

other documents to find out whether the allegations prima facie

attract any of the ingredients of the alleged offence and then only

frame charge against the accused persons.

10. In the instant case, on a perusal of complaint, F.I.R and

charge sheet, the allegations disclose that the petitioner had

friendship with the deceased Sujatha from the year 2011 and

developed intimacy and they both started loving each other. It is

alleged that the deceased was insisting for marriage and the

petitioner had prolonged and avoided marriage and the same

continued for four years. On 07.02.2015 at about 01:30 pm., the

deceased went to the house of the petitioner with the marriage

proposal and the petitioner and his parents refused to meet her

and asked to her to go away and closed the doors. The deceased

knocked the doors and after some time when they opened the

doors, they found her lying in unconscious state. It is stated that

she consumed poison and immediately she was taken to hospital

in an auto and the doctor there declared dead. The auto driver, who

took the deceased to hospital, was also examined as a witness and

the family members also stated in their statements about friendship

between the petitioner and the deceased. Apart from all these, the

medial certificate of the deceased would show that she died of

myocardial infarction (heart attack), which may be due to several

reasons. The fact whether the deceased died of heart attack and

that consumption of poison would result in death of the deceased

will come out only after proper trial. The statements of witnesses

reveal that death of the deceased was not a natural death. Though

there is delay in lodging the complaint, the reasons for the delay

would come out only when the trial is conducted.

11. In the impugned order, the trial court has considered the

entire material before dismissing the application. It is to be kept in

mind that while framing the charge the courts must apply its

judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be

satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was

possible and whether a prima facie case against the accused is

made out. The material on record, in the instant case, raises a

suspicion about the involvement of the accused in the commission

of offence.

12. In the view of the above discussion and having gone through

the material on record and considering the submissions of both the

learned counsel, this court is of the view that the impugned order

does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and there is

sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner by framing

appropriate charges and to proceed with the trial. The petitioner is

not entitled for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

13. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J

20.06.2022 Lrkm