1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Smt. Sumitra & anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & anr. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.247/2008. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 18th July, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. D.V. Tholia for the petitioner. Mrs.Nirmala Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: This revision petition under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 3rd November, 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Khetri in Sessions Case No.24/2007 (133/2007), whereby charge has been framed against the accused-petitioner under section 498-A and 306 IPC. It arises in the following circumstances. On 26th February, 2007, Bhagwanta Ram lodged a first information report bearing No.40/2007 police station Singhana District Jhunjhunu alleging therein that due to harassment and demand of dowry deceased Shakuntala committed suicide. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against Smt. Mevli devi, Sumitra and Jai Prakash under section 498-A and 306 IPC on3.11.2007. A revision petition (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition 2 No.1282/2007) was filed by Jai Prakash son of Shri Chand, the husband of the deceased before this court against the order framing charge against him. The revision petition was decided by this court vide order dated 8.1.2008. This court quashed and set aside the order of framing charge against husband Jai Prakash under section 306 IPC and maintained the charge under section 498-A IPC. Subsequently, the present revision petition has been filed by the sister-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, the present petitioners, challenging the order passed by the learned trial court framing charge against them under section 306 and 498- A IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the accused- petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material available on the charge-sheet and the documents annexed with the revision petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners that for proving a case under section 306 IPC, the evidence collected by the prosecution to show that the deceased was abated and as a result of which suicide took place. According to the learned counsel, there does not appear any evidence of abatement, therefore, no charge under section 306 IPC could be framed. It has also been contended that the order framing charge under section 306 IPC against the husband has been set aside. It has also been contended that the deceased was a mental patient and that fact can be taken notice by this court in 3 view of annexures filed along with this revision petition. It has further been contended that petitioner Sumitra, who is sister-in-law of deceased, is living in Haryana with her husband and kids, therefore, the allegation that she abated the crime or her behavior was cruel against the deceased is not believable. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that the primary satisfaction of the trial Judge is essential for the purpose of framing charge. According to the learned Public Prosecutor in this case, sufficient material was collected by the investigating agency, therefore, it cannot be said that the learned trial court committed illegality in framing the charge. It is contended that up till now the statement of more than 10 witnesses have been recorded. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the order passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1282/2007 dated 8.1.2008 reveals that it was contended before this court that in view of the statement of brother of the deceased Kamal, it did not appear that the husband was responsible for any abatement. The argument which was raised was that the allegations were in relation to other accused persons. The relevant portion of the contention raised in the above revision petition is as under: “It was, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for accused-petitioner that the incident took place on 26.2.07 and it is admitted case of the prosecution that on that 4 date he was not in the village, but he was present at his work-place in 3 Mahar Regiment. Therefore, it cannot be said that he, in any way, abetted his deceased wife for committing suicide. It was also contended that Kamal brother of the deceased, did not state that the petitioner abetted his wife for committing suicide but he only alleged other accused persons, who were in the village. It was then contended that the police after investigation has filed charge-sheet only for the offence under S.498A IPC against him, but without any material and by a non-speaking order, the trial court also framed charge for the offence under S.306 IPC. Thus, it appears that at the initial stage when the order of framing charge was challenged, it was argued that the allegations were in relation to other accused persons who are now the present petitioners. On the basis of order passed in anticipatory bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 26.4.2007 to Sumitra the petitioner observing that long time has elapsed between the marriage, incident, non-availability of the petitioner at the place of incident and further that she was mental patient, the contention of the learned counsel that petitioner Sumitra was not in the State of Rajasthan and she was at Haryana, therefore, neither the offence under Section 498A nor 306 IPC is made out against the accused-petitioner is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that in the FIR and in the statement of witnesses it has been stated that the deceased was harassed by the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and the husband regularly. It has also been stated in the statement that the husband of the deceased took a loan of Rs.40,000/- from the father of deceased 5 but the same was not returned and when a demand was made then deceased was tortured by the family members and she was compelled to obtain back the writings on which money transaction took place. The witnesses have stated that the deceased was abused regularly and the family members tortured her. The other documents annexed with the petition are also not to be gone into for the simple reason that the position of law is also settled on the point that at the time of framing charge, the courts are required to be satisfied that a prima-facie case is made out for framing charge in relation to a particular offence. The position of law is also settled that the documents which are to be taken into consideration by the court at the time of framing charge are the statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation or to say the material collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. The other documents on which the petitioner relies in his defence requires proving the same at the appropriate stage of the trial in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hem Chand Vs. State of Jharkhand (2008)5 SCC 113 has observed that the court at the stage of framing charge exercises a limited jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out. Whether a case of probable conviction for commission of an offence has been made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation should be the concern of the court. It, at that stage, would not delve deep into the matter for the purpose of 6 appreciation of evidence. It would ordinarily not consider as to whether the accused would be able to establish his defence, if any. In the above case against Hem Chand, a charge-sheet was filed under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the reason that on a raid conducted by the CBI officials at the residence of accused Hem Chand, it was found that his assets were more than his income. Certain documents were not supplied to him. A revision petition was filed by Hem Chand before the High Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the matter observing that it was unnecessary to enter into all those points raised on behalf of the accused as the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge regarding non-supply of documents was liable to be set aside. It was directed that the CBI shall furnish copies of the documents stated in the search list and the Special Judge, CBI shall take into consideration the various arguments raised at the time of framing charge. The learned Special Judge on moving the application for discharge rejected the same and the matter came before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the previous decision reported in State of M.P. Vs. Mohan Lal Soni [(2000)6 SCC 338] observed that it is beyond any doubt or dispute that at the stage of framing of charge, the court will not weigh the evidence. The stage for appreciating the evidence for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether 7 the prosecution was able to bring home the charge against the accused or not would arise only after all the evidence is brought on record at the trial. The documents whereupon the appellant intended to rely were: (i) an order of assessment passed by the Income Tax Authority, and (ii) his declaration of assets. In view of the authoritative pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there remains no doubt in my mind that the documents which are being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to show that no case is made out against the accused-petitioner under section 306 IPC, cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of framing charge. As I have discussed here-in-above that in the statement of the witnesses and in the FIR it has come that the deceased was harassed by her in-laws. It has also come in the statement of witnesses that she subsequently committed suicide. Therefore, I do not find any reason to take a different view than one taken by the learned trial court framing charge against the accused-petitioner. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J)