IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG: SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)/ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH EAST) : KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC No. 9(I)/12 FIR No. 32/12 PS Mansarovar Park Under [SECTION] [ACT] Case ID 02402R0112562012 [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] R/o H. No. i/2003, Ram Nagar Delhi. ORDER ON CHARGE 1.
In the present case, the accused has been set up for trial for the offences punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT], on the allegations that the accused was having the habit of gambling and was habitual in telling lies to his wife (since deceased). It is also alleged that due to the aforesaid bad habits of the accused, his wife, namely, [ENTITY] D/o [ENTITY] (since deceased) committed suicide on 19.02.2012, by hanging.
2. During the course of arguments on charge, the Ld. APP for the [ENTITY] has argued that there are specific allegations against the accused to attract the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT], as the complainant [ENTITY], the father of the deceased, has categorically stated that the accused was having bad habits of gambling and was also habitual in telling lies. Due to which, his daughter was very annoyed and because of the bad habits of the accused, quarrels have taken place between the accused and the deceased, on several occasions. He has also argued that the statements of the complainant [ENTITY], recorded on 20.02.2012, his supplementary statement recorded on the same day and the statements of the other public witnesses, namely, [ENTITY], [ENTITY], Smt. [ENTITY] (the mother of the deceased) and Sh. [ENTITY], clearly indicate that due to the bad habits of the accused and his frequent quarrels with the deceased, the deceased was driven to commit suicide and therefore, a prima facie case for the offences punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT] is made out against the accused.
3. On the other hand, the Ld. Defence Counsel, Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate, has argued that there is no material on record to indicate that the accused has committed any cruelty towards the deceased. He has also argued that the accused has not done any act, which led the deceased to commit the suicide. He has also argued that to attract the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT], there has to be a clear 'mens rea' to commit the offence and it requires a direct act on the part of the accused, which led the deceased to commit suicide. He has also argued that the bad habits of gambling or telling lies, cannot be described as instigating or aiding the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, no offence is made out against the accused.
4. I have carefully gone through the case file and I have given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for the [ENTITY] and the Ld. Defence Counsel and I have also carefully gone through the various judgments cited by the Ld. Defence Counsel, in support of his contentions.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the deceased, the wife of the accused, committed suicide on 19.02.2012 and on 20.02.2012, the statement of her father was recorded by Sh. [ENTITY], SDM, Seema Puri, wherein, the complainant alleged that her daughter (since deceased) was very perturbed due to the habits of gambling and telling lies by the accused. He has also alleged that due to the bad habits of the accused, several quarrels have taken place between the accused and the deceased. He has further stated that the deceased was mentally very strong and she could not have committed suicide, otherwise, due to the quarrels by the accused and due to his bad habits.
6. Perusal of the record further shows that on the same day, the police officials have recorded the statements of various public witnesses, U/[SECTION] [ACT] and perusal of those statements also indicate that due to the bad habits of the accused and due to his frequent quarrels with the deceased, the deceased was driven to commit suicide.
7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Suresh @ Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani etc. Vs. [ENTITY] of Maharashtra, reported as, 2001, A.I.R. (SC) 1375, as under: "9. We do not feel it necessary to repeat the discussions on the different points and the decisions which have been referred to in the judgment. However we notice a few recent decisions of this Court touching on the question. In the case of [ENTITY] of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and others, 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 634 (SC) : 1997(4) SCC 393, this Court referring to the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, 1990(4) SCC 76, held that at the stage of [SECTION] and [SECTION] the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, 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. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (Emphasis supplied).
10. In the case of [ENTITY] of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Soni, 2000(3) RCR(Crl.) 452 (SC) : 2000(6) SCC 338, this Court referring to several previous decisions, held that the crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. (Emphasis supplied)."
8. In the circumstances of the present case and in view of the settled legal position, regarding framing of charge and the material on record in the present case, I am of the considered opinion that a prima facie case for the offences punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT] is made out against the accused. The charges be framed against him, for the said offences, accordingly. It is ordered accordingly. Announced in the open court on this 21st day of August, 2012. [ENTITY] Special Judge NDPS (NorthEast) Addl. Sessions Judge:
KKD Courts, Delhi.