THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case Nos.1619 & 1620 of 2010 (Dated: 19-11-2010) Between: K.Srinivas S/o Swamy Das R/o Gajularamaram, Ranga Reddy District and another …Petitioners A n d State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case Nos.1619 and 1620 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two criminal revision cases are directed against the order dated 16.8.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.295 of 2010 in S.C.No.198 of 2010 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by A-2-K.Srinivas and A-3-K.Giri under Section 227 Cr.P.C., and consequently, framed charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against them in S.C.No.198 of 2010. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of these revisions by A-2 and A-3 in S.C.No.198 of 2010 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad are:- A-1-K.Durender @ Devender, A-2 K.Srinivas and A-3-K.Giri are brothers and they are sons of K.Swamy Das. Bangari Shravan Kumar and Smt.K.Lavanya are brother and sister. They lost their parents at their childhood. They were brought up by their maternal aunt and uncle; namely, Lw-2-Smt. Mangaloori Jayalaxmi and Lw- 1-Mangaloor Narsingh Rao. Lws 1 and 2 performed the marriage of Lavanya with A-1-Devender on 10.2.2005 at Manikonda, Hyderabad in the presence of elders of both sides. Name of Lavanya has been changed as Shyamala at the time of marriage. After the marriage, A-1 to A-3 harassed Lavanya mentally and physically on the ground of additional dowry. It is alleged that A-1 to A-3 forced Lavanya to bring additional dowry from her maternal aunt and uncle (Lws.1 and 2). She was working in a private office. A-1 to A-3 used to take away her entire earnings. When she expressed her inability to satisfy dowry demand of A-1 to A-3, she was beaten by them. On 02.4.2007, at about 07.30 hours, she asked A-1 to bring vegetables and other household articles. Thereupon, A-1 got annoyed, picked up quarrel with her and poured kerosene and lit fire to her and thereby she caught in flames. She sustained burn injuries, for which she succumbed while undergoing treatment in the hospital on 8.4.2007 at 15.30 hours. 3. While she was undergoing treatment in the hospital, her statement came to be recorded by Lw-15 D.Lingappa, Head Constable 4592 of PS Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Basing on her statement, a case in Crime No.301 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC came to be registered by Lw-17- B.Yada Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills P.S. Hyderabad. Lw-18-P.Sudhakar, Sub Inspector of Police took up investigation, inspected the scene and prepared panchanama in the presence of Lw-11-B.Satish Kumar, Lw-12, G.Sudhakar Reddy. Lw-18 recorded the statement of Smt. Lavanya under Section 161 Cr.P.C in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The dying declaration of Lavanya came to be recorded by Lw-10- Smt.G.Theresa, V Metropolitan Magistrate, RTC (M), Court, Secunderabad. Smt. Lavanya succumbed to the injuries in Government Hospital while undergoing treatment on 8.4.2007 at about 15.30 hours. On receipt of death intimation, the section of law came to be altered from Section 307 and 498-A IPC to Sections 302 and 304-B IPC. Lw-19-V.Rama Krishnaiah, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad took up investigation. After completing investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as PRC and subsequently, the case came to be committed to the Metropolitan Sessions Division, Hyderabad. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C.No.198 of 2010 and made over the same to the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad. 4. A-2-K.Srinivas, A-3-K.Giri filed Criminal Petition 295 of 2010 under Section 227 Cr.P.C seeking discharge. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused, dismissed the application by order dated 16.8.2010 and framed the following charges:- Charge No.1 Against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 498- A IPC Charge No.2 Against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 304- B IPC Charge No.3 Against A-1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC Charge No.4 Against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act Charge No.5 Against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 5. Hence, these two Criminal Revision Cases. 6. Heard Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the incident in which Smt. Lavanya sustained burn injuries is attributable only to A-1 and the petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-2 and A-3, are in no way responsible and in which case, a charge under Section 304-B IPC framed against the petitioners cannot be sustained. A further submission has been made that the dying declaration of the deceased Lavanya do not implicate the petitioners as responsible for her receiving burn injuries and so also she does not attributed harassment on the ground of additional dowry against the petitioners herein, in which case, framing charges against the petitioners either under Section 498-A IPC or Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained. Learned counsel took me to the statements of Smt. Lavanya , which formed basis for registering a case in Crime No.301 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC and also the dying declaration recorded by Lw-10-Smt.G.Theresa, V Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the statements of Lw-1-Mangaloor Narsingh Rao, Lw-2-Mangaloori Jayalaxmi and Lw-3-Bangari Shravan Kumar indicate of Lavanya being subjected to harassment on the ground of additional dowry and therefore, the trial Court is justified in framing charges under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC against the petitioners herein. 9. Section 227 confers a special power on the Judge to discharge an accused at the threshold if upon consideration of the record and documents he considers that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In other words, his consideration of record and the document at that stage is for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for proceeding with the trial against the accused. If he comes to the conclusion that there exists sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 288, if not he will discharge the accused. It must be remembered that this section was introduced in the Code to avoid waste of public time over cases, which do not disclose prima facie case and to save the accused from avoidable harassment and expenditure. 10. The next question is what is the scope and ambit of the consideration by the trial Court at that stage. The enquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for framing the charge. At that stage, the court may sift the evidence for that limited purpose, but the court is not required to marshal the evidence with a view to separating the grain from the chalf. All that the Court called upon to consider is whether there exist sufficient ground to frame the charge. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, 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, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence, vide decision of the Supreme Court in ONKAR NATH MISHRA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)[1] 11. Indisputably, Smt. Lavanya died of burn injuries. Her statements recorded by the police and the learned Magistrate indicate that it is A-1, who is responsible for causing burn injuries to her. Smt. Lavanya does not speak of the petitioners herein, who have been figured as A-2 and A-3, as persons responsible for burn injuries received by her on 2.4.2007. Therefore, framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under section 304-B IPC is wholly unsustainable and the same is liable to set aside. With regard to charge under Section 498-A IPC, the statements of Lws.1 and 2 indicate that the petitioners demanded the deceased K.Lavanya to bring additional dowry. The acceptability of the statements of Lws.1 to 4 before police is required to be examined during trial. Therefore, charge framed against the petitioners 1 and 2 under Section 498-A IPC cannot be said to be without any basis. 12. Accordingly, these two Criminal Revision Cases are partly allowed setting aside charge for the offence under Section 304-B IPC against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 in S.C.No.198 of 2010 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.19-11-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case Nos.1619 and 1620 of 2010 (Dated : 19-11-2010) [1] 2008-Crimes (Sc)-1-42