Anu Singh v. …
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2021 Anu Singh ----- Versus …… Petitioner 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Manoj Kumar Singh …… Opp. Parties ----- PRESENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, APP : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate ----- JUDGMENT CAV on:24.03.2022 Pronounced on:17.05.2023 1. This Criminal Revision No.665 of 2021 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the order dated 28.09.2021 passed by Sri R.K. Mishra, the learned Additional Sessions Judge- V, Dhanbad in S.T. Case No.122 of 2021 (arising out of Jogta P.S. Case No.09 of 2021) instituted for the offences under sections 306/34 of the I.P.C by which the discharge petition, filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioner, has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.05.2021 deceased Rahul Kumar Singh who was the son of the informant, had committed suicide by hanging himself. It is further alleged that the deceased was married to the petitioner on 19.11.2019 and since marriage the in-laws of his deceased son were torturing the son of the informant to stay separately from his family and due to which his son, after getting fed up of such pressure, has
Facts
committed suicide and as such the FIR was lodged on 25.05.2021. 3.
Legal Reasoning
“Para-39:- The court while considering the question of framing charges under Section 227 CrPC has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. If the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. The probative value of the evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing charges. The court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the 10 ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh where it has been held that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 or 228 Cr.P.C., if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence, then the court should proceed with the trial. 24. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit. 25. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on the fact and in the circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that this Criminal Revision No.665 of 2021 is devoid of merit and accordingly Criminal Revision No.665 of 2021 is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to take all the points during the trial at the time of evidence. Saket/ A.F.R. (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Arguments
Heard Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned APP for the State and Mr. Suraj Singh, 2 learned counsel for the O.P.No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that from perusal of the F.I.R it is evident that no case under section 306 of the I.P.C is made out against this petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased Rahul Kumar Singh who has allegedly committed suicide. It is submitted that the court below while rejecting the discharge petition filed by the petitioner, has failed to consider the entire matter. It is submitted that the material on record as produced by the prosecution was merely in the nature of preponderance of probability that the deceased committed suicide as because the petitioner who happens to be his wife was pressing him to stay away from his parents and to live separately. 5. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has abetted the deceased son of informant to commit suicide. It is further submitted that from the definition of Section 306 and 107 of the I.P.C, it is clear that no offence under section 306 of the I.P.C is made out against the petitioner and the petitioner has not abetted the deceased to commit the suicide. It is further submitted that marriage between the petitioner and the deceased Rahul Kumar Singh was solemnized on 19.11.2019 and even as per demand made by the informant Rs.3,60,000/- was transferred and again Rs.7,40,000/- was given as cash in addition to Gold Ornaments and several household articles were also given and the informant and his family members were satisfied. It is submitted that the statements of the witnesses, as recorded in the case diary, are the statements of the interested witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted 3 that the witnesses namely, Santosh Kumar Singh, Sanju Devi, Vinita Devi, Ruby Devi, Nibha Singh, Riya Kumari, Divya Singh, Sunil Singh, Anand Kumar Singh and Samar Shakti Singh, whose statements have been recorded at paragraph nos.11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 31, 32 and 33 of the case diary respectively, have merely stated that the petitioner has slapped the deceased and as such no offence under section 306 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are as follows: (i) 2021 SCC Online SC 873, (ii) (2019) 13 SCC 598, (iii) (2010) 12 SCC 190, (iv) (2001) 9 SCC 618, (v) (2021) 2 SCC 427 and (vi) (2019) 3 SCC 315. It is submitted that in view of the above, this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below suffers from no infirmity. It is submitted that the learned court below has passed the speaking order. It is submitted that several witnesses namely Santosh Kumar Singh, Sanju Devi, Vinita Devi, Ruby Devi, Nibha Singh, Riya Kumari, Divya Singh, Sunil Singh, Anand Kumar Singh and Samar Shakti Singh whose statements have been mentioned at paragraph nos.11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 31, 32 and 33 of the case diary have supported the allegation against the petitioner and hence this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 4 7. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2, after adopting the submission of the learned APP, has further submitted that this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the petitioner although was wife of the deceased, but she had humiliated her husband i.e. the deceased Rahul Kumar Singh several times in front of people and due to which the deceased was living in depression. It is submitted that the petitioner had committed cruelty upon the deceased Rahul Kumar Singh several times and had humiliated him in public which is also evident from the statement of the witnesses namely, Santosh Kumar Singh, Sanju Devi, Vinita Devi, Ruby Devi, Nibha Singh, Riya Kumari, Divya Singh, Sunil Singh, Anand Kumar Singh and Samar Shakti Singh, whose statements have been recorded at paragraph nos.11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 31, 32 and 33 respectively of the case diary. It is submitted that even the post mortem report reveals that the cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of hanging and as such no illegality has been committed by the court below while rejecting the discharge petition filed by the petitioner and hence this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 8. Perused the F.I.R, Lower Court Records and the Case Diary of this case and considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides. 9. From perusal of the F.I.R, it would appear that marriage between the petitioner and the deceased son of the opposite party no.2, was solemnized on 19.11.2019 and while the petitioner was in her matrimonial home then the deceased Rahul Kumar Singh (son of the informant) is said to have committed suicide on 25.05.2021 due to the act of the petitioner and her family members. 10. It further appears from the statement of the witnesses namely Santosh Kumar Singh, Sanju Devi, Vinita Devi, Ruby 5 Devi, Nibha Singh, Riya Kumari, Divya Singh, Sunil Singh, Anand Kumar Singh and Samar Shakti Singh, whose statements have been recorded at paragraph nos.11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 31, 32 and 33 respectively of the case diary, that the petitioner had slapped the deceased in public view on 24.05.2021 in presence of several people of the locality when they were trying to settle the dispute between the petitioner and the deceased son of the informant-O.P.No.2 one day prior to the occurrence. It also reveals from the respective statements of the above witnesses that the petitioner and her family members were also pressurizing the son of the O.P.No.2 to live separately from his parents. Thus, it appears that the deceased husband was having strained relationship with the wife-petitioner. 11. So far as judgment reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315 (M. Arjunan vs. State) is concerned, the same is not applicable because in the above case the deceased had committed suicide as he had failed to repay the loan amount of Rs.80,000/- advanced by the accused-appellant by way of debt to the deceased and the deceased person is said to have left the suicide note stating therein that he is unable to repay the loan and taking the extreme step. Thus, the above case is different from the case of the petitioner. 12. So far as judgment reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 (Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh) is concerned, the same is not applicable because in the above case the deceased wife had committed suicide but in her suicide note she had not made allegation against her husband-appellant, accused-appellant of the above case and even in her dying declaration recorded before an Executive Magistrate the deceased wife had not alleged anything 6 against accused-appellant (i.e. husband) except that a quarrel had occurred between her and her husband and her husband told her that she is free and can go wherever she wants to go. However, the appellant was convicted on the basis of one another alleged letter written by the deceased wife which was disbelieved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and no instigation on the part of the husband i.e. the Accused-Appellant was found by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after going through the entire records of the learned Trial Court. However, in this case, the trial is yet to commence. 13. So far as judgment reported in the case of (2021) 2 SCC 427 (Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) is concerned, it is mainly on the point of grant of bail and exercising power under section 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C by the High Court and also on the point of malicious prosecution and hence the above judgment is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. 14. So far as judgment held in the case of Narayan Malhari Thorat vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Anr. reported in (2019) 13 SCC 598 the same is not applicable for the case of the petitioner because in the above case the Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed the prayer of the informant and had set aside the order of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench although the High Court had quashed the proceeding instituted against the accused-1st Respondent instituted under section 306 of the I.P.C and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reversed the finding of the High Court and had directed the authorities to complete the investigation of the FIR, which was lodged by the appellant as his son had committed suicide due to harassment of the 1st Respondent who used to harass the daughter- in-law of the appellant-Informant. Thus, the above judgment supports the case of the informant. 7 15. So far as judgment held in the case of S. S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahaajan and Anr. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190 the same is also not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case because in the above case the deceased (who was a student) had committed suicide for having been allegedly implicated in a theft case of mobile phone with one another student Harminder Singh who was said to have falsely implicated the deceased son of the Informant and the M.D Singh has merely forwarded the version of the deceased son of Informant and said Harminder Singh to the University Authorities for necessary action and while an enquiry was being conducted, the son of the Informant, had committed suicide by leaving a Suicide Note showing grievous against said Harminder Singh and the accused- appellant was conducting enquiry being the Security Officer and he was even not named in the FIR. 16. So far as judgment held in the case of Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 873 is concerned, the same is also not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case because in the above case the accused- appellant was a Teacher of the School and who is said to have reprimanded the deceased boy of Class-IX of his of his School for bunking the classes and Suicide Note of deceased student merely indicated his name as “Thanks GEO (PTI) of M.P. School.” However, the case of the petitioner is different from the above case. 17. At the stage of framing of charges, this Court cannot enter into the question whether the petitioner had the requisite instruction to aid or investigate or abet the commission of offence. 18. It is well settled from a catena of judgments that at the 8 stage of framing of charges meticulous examination of the statement of the witnesses should not be done. 19. It is also well settled that the defence of the accused cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of the charges. 20. It has been held in the case of Anup Kumar Lakhotia Vs. The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2022 (1) JLJR page 127 and Para-25 of the said judgment is as follows: “Para-25:- The learned court below, while considering the petition for discharge considered the scope of Section 227 of Cr. P. C. and recorded that hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression „hearing the submissions of the accused‟ cannot mean opportunity to file material is to be granted to the accused. At the stage of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police.” 21. It has been held that in the case of State By The Inspector Of Police, Chennai vs. S. Selvi and Another reported in 2018 (13) SCC 455 at paragraph No.10 as follows:- “Para-10:- If on the basis of the material on record, the Court would form prima facie opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame charge, though for conviction it is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record has to be gone into and the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant conviction. The Court is required to evaluate the material on record at the stage of Sections 227 or 239 of the Code, as the case may be, only with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at the face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with the presumption that materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate such material with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose existence of the ingredients of the offence.” 9 22. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. E. Shivalingamurthy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768 at para17.3, 17.6 and 18 as follows:- “Para-17.3:-The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court. Para-17.6:- The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. Para-18:- The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression. "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any. produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge. the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).” 23. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors and in the case of Kanta Devi Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 290 at para-39 as follows:-