Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta v. Vijay passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) & Ors.

: Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 01/08/2025

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners Vijay Kumar Son Of Suresh Chand Singhal, Rajendra Kumar @ Raju Son Of Suresh Chand Singhal, Shiv Narayan @ Banti Son Of Suresh Chand Singhal, Suresh Chand Son Of Prabhu Dayal Singhal, Smt. Shakuntala W/o Suresh Chand Singhal, Smt. Hemlata W/o Rajendra Kumar Singhal and Ram Chandra Son Of Kanhaiya Lal Singhal aggrieved from order dated 15.11.2002 in sessions case No.122/2002 titled as State Vs. Vijay and Ors. passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer [2025:RJ-JP:44856] (2 of 8) [CRLR-38/2003] whereby the trial court has directed to frame charge under Sections 498A, 304B and 406 IPC against the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners while placing reliance upon judgments in cases of State of H.P. Vs. Nikku Ram (AIR 96 SC 67), Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2001 SC 2828), Onkar Nath Mishra Vs. State (2008 (2) SCC 561), Neelu Chopra Vs. State of Bihar (2009 (10) SCC 184), Shankar Lal Sharma Vs. Monica (2009 (10) SCC 604), Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. Vs. State of UP (AIR 2013 SC 181), Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. UOI (AIR 2005 SC 3100), Munniswamy Vs. State of Karnataka (AIR 77 SC 1489), Nanchhu Ram and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (90 RCC 87) Yogesh @ Sachin Vs. State of Maharashtra (JT 2008 (6) SC 299) and Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Uttrakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2012) has submitted that complainant has registered a case of suspicious death of Deepa on 31 December 2001, but there is not a single evidence on record to show that any of the petitioners has contributed in cause of death of deceased Deepa. He further submitted that after death, the body of deceased was examined by medical board, but it has not opined about reasons of death. He further submitted that during investigation, the investigating officer has also asked about the cause of death and medical board has opined that no abnormal cause of death can be find out. He also submitted that there is no material on record to show that soon before the death, any demand of dowry was made and on non-fulfillment, deceased was subjected to cruelty or [2025:RJ-JP:44856] (3 of 8) [CRLR-38/2003] harassment. He also submitted that in order to attract the charge under section 304B IPC, it is necessary that there should be some evidence to connect petitioners with the act committed by them. He also referred the ingredients under sections 498A and 406 of IPC and submitted that none of the ingredient is made out from the charge. He also submitted that police has filed charge sheet without drawing any conclusion and evidence on record. He also submitted that it is duty of the trial court to consider the material on record and draw a correct conclusion before framing the charge and trial court without following principles of law has mechanically framed charges.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record along with judgments as cited by learned counsel for petitioner.

5. The brief facts of the case are that Complainant Girish Goyal lodged an FIR on 10.01.2002 at P.S. Nasirabad about the marriage of his sister Deepa with Vijay Kumar on 21.11.2000 and thereafter cruelty and harassment on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and further death of Deepa. The FIR was registered on 05.02.2002 at P.S. Nasirabad, Ajmer. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against 7 petitioners under Sections 498A, 304B, and 406 IPC. By the impugned order, the trial court has framed charge under Sections 498A, 304B, and 406 IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:44856] (4 of 8) [CRLR-38/2003]

6. The facts available on record clearly indicate that the marriage of Deepa was solemnized with Vijay Kumar on

21.11.2000, and in suspicious circumstances, Deepa died on

31.12.2001. This indicates that the death of Deepa occurred within 7 years of her marriage in suspicious circumstances, though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an issue that the reason of death is not proved from the material available on record. The complainant has made allegations about demand of dowry and the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC are also placed on record and we have considered the statement of witnesses submitted during the course of arguments.

7. The governing principle of law at the stage of charge was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. :(1979) 3 SCC 4 and were referred and relied in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 398. It was held that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should [2025:RJ-JP:44856] (5 of 8) [CRLR-38/2003] proceed with the trial or not. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application.

8. Again in case of State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Vs. M. R. Hiremath : (2019) 7 SCC 515, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering several judgments on the issue in a matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has held that the trial court while dealing with an application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials 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 a conviction.

9. A similar opinion was also expressed in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap : (2021) 11 SCC 191 and relied upon in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023 INSC 555), it was held that at the stage of framing of charge and/or considering discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible. A defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge and/or at the stage of discharge of application. [2025:RJ-JP:44856] (6 of 8) [CRLR-38/2003]

10. In case of Nanchhu Ram & Anr. v. Raj (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that revisional jurisdiction is extremely narrow. The Court cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court. Interference is allowed only when there is perversity, clear illegality, gross miscarriage of justice, or a jurisdictional error.

11. In case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nikku Ram (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that hostile witness testimony cannot be rejected in totality. Credible portions may be relied upon. Hostility does not destroy the prosecution case if other evidence is reliable.

12. In Case of Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave a landmark ruling on Section 304B IPC (Dowry Death) which defined ingredients: death within 7 years of marriage, cruelty for dowry, cruelty 'soon before death'. It established presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act.

13. In case of Sheo Nath Mishra v. State (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that delay in filing FIR is not automatically fatal. If delay is reasonably explained, prosecution case is not weakened. Courts must adopt a substantive over technical approach.

14. In Case of Rekha Chopra v. State of Bihar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified scope of Section 482 CrPC. It was held that High court should not assess evidence at preliminary stages. Further stated that quashing is permissible only when allegations are inherently improbable, absurd, or continuation amounts to abuse of process. [2025:RJ-JP:44856] (7 of 8) [CRLR-38/2003]

15. In Case of Shankar Lal Sharma v. Monica (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme court held that criminal law must not be invoked for disputes of predominantly civil nature. Stated that courts must curb misuse of criminal proceedings as tools of pressure or harassment.

16. In Case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. (supra), the Hon’ble court in this case re-affirmed essential elements of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC and stated that suspicion, no matter how strong, is not a substitute for proof. Put burden on prosecution to show meeting of minds and evidence of agreement.

17. In Case of Anil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme court re-stated principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings: fair hearing, absence of bias, and reasoned orders. Clarified that fairness is mandatory even in departmental actions.

18. In Case of Muniswamy v. State of Karnataka (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that minor contradictions or inconsistencies in witness statements do not invalidate the case of the prosecution. Only contradictions that strike at the core of the case are material.

19. In Case of Sachin @ Sachin v. State of Maharashtra (supra), Hon’ble Supreme court held that child witness testimony is admissible but must be approached with caution. Credibility and competency must be carefully evaluated. If the court suspects tutoring, the same should be corroborated. [2025:RJ-JP:44856] (8 of 8) [CRLR-38/2003]

20. In Case of Gurjit/Gurnam Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (supra), Hon’ble Supreme court held that defective or illegal investigation does not automatically vitiate the trial. Courts must assess whether evidence is otherwise reliable. Prejudice must be proven to the court for investigation defects to warrant acquittal.

21. Having considered the principles as mentioned herein above, when we look at the oral evidence of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it is apparent that the allegations were made against the petitioners and the truthfulness of these allegations can only be decided during the course of trial. At the stage of framing of charge, this Court cannot go into the veracity of the allegations. The judgments as referred by learned counsel for the petitioners require consideration at the time of final adjudication when the evidence is available on record so as to decide the role and involvement on the basis of evidence, but not at this stage.

22. Having considered the impugned order and also the material available on record, I am of the considered view that the trial court has not committed any error while framing charge against the petitioners. Therefore, the revision petition sans merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

23. In view of the discussion made herein above, the revision petition is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any.

24. No order as to costs. PREETI VALECHA /72 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J