-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 60 OF 2009 Mr. Kanchan Chodankar s/o Vishwanath Chodankar aged 42 years, Indian National r/o. H. No. 326, Maliwada, Revora, Bardez-Goa. …...Petitioner V e r s u s S T A T E (Through P. I. Attached to Mapusa Police Station Mapusa, Bardez – Goa) …...Respondent Ms. Reshma Wadekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent. CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 27 th January, 2010. P.C. The above Criminal Revision Application is directed against the Order dated 03.10.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, by which Order, the learned Judge has directed the framing of charge against the Petitioner above named under Section 302 of I.P.C. 2. It is alleged against the Petitioner that he was subjecting his wife Kiran @ Ujwala to cruelty by his conduct with a view to meet the demands for money and that he had assaulted her on the intervening night on 15/16.05.2007 at 07.30 hours and caused injuries. It is further alleged that he had then drowned her in the river water situated at a distance of 15 metres in front of his house at Revora, Bardez, and caused her death with the -2- knowledge that the injuries inflicted by him on her left eye and on the head would result in her death. On behalf of the Petitioner, the statement made by the mother of the victim, who has lodged the FIR as also the statements of the brothers of the victim, the chargesheet, inquest panchanama as well as the autopsy report, are sought to be relied upon so as to contend that the Petitioner-accused could not be tried for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. as there is absolutely no material on record to connect the Petitioner- accused to the said offence. It is also sought to be contended that there is no material on record showing the complicity of the Petitioner–accused in the said office under section 302. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1058, in the matter of Suresh vs. State of Maharashtra & anr., especially paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof, which for convenience sake, are reproduced herein under : “6. The Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. S. B. Johari & Ors. (2000 (2) SCC 57) has observed thus: “It is settled law that at the stage of framing the 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 the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross- examination or rebutted by defence -3- evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial” (emphasis supplied) 7. In the present, perusal of the entire charge-sheet reveals that none of the witnesses attributed any role to the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It can be seen that the prosecution is not in a position to point out any material which would directly or indirectly establish the complicity of the petitioner in the said offence. Not only that but the learned Additional Sessions Judge herself has observed while rejecting the application at Exh. 29 for pardon that the petitioner did not participate in the crime and that he did not aid the said crime. The trial Court on perusal of the charge-sheet has categorically found that the petitioner did not play any role in the commission of the crime.” 3. Relying on the said Judgment, it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that no overt act is attributed, by any of the witnesses whose statements have been recorded showing intention and knowledge on the part of the Petitioner-accused in respect of the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 4. Per contra, Shri Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the supplementary statement of the mother of the victim Ujwala as well as the statements of two independent persons namely one Suhasini -4- Suhas Naik and her husband Suhas Narayan Naik, whose statements indicate the estranged relations between the husband and the wife as also that all was not well in the matrimonial home. The learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2008 (10) S.C.C. 681, in the matter of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanjay Choudhary & Ors, wherein the Apex Court has laid down that on the basis of the material on record, the Court would come to a conclusion that commission of an offence is a probable consequence where case of framing of charge exists. The Apex Court has further held that at the stage of framing charge, probative value on the basis of the material on record cannot be gone into. The material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. 5. Considering the material which is on record in the instant case and which has been considered by the learned Sessions Judge whilst passing the Order directing framing of charge under Section 302 against the Petitioner, and in view of the position in law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sanghi Brothers case (supra), in my view, the impugned Order does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Cr. P.C. The Criminal Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*