Criminal Revision No.1784 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Revision No.1784 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 5.8.2011 Rajesh Kumar and others PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Punjab and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri K.K.Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri B.B.S.Teji, Senior D.A.G. Punjab. Shri A.K.Ahluwalia, Advocate. MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition is directed against the framing of the charge by the learned trial Court against the petitioners under SectionS 406,498A,509 & 306 I.P.C. The grievance of the petitioners, however, is limited against the framing of the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. It has been stated that in so far as the other charges are concerned, the petitiones will face trial, but in so far as the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is concerned, reference has been made to the decision of the Sessions Judge, Patiala Criminal Revision No.1784 of 2010 -2- dated 8.10.2010 wherein while trying one of the accused persons named Brahamvir Gaba, the learned trial Court observed as follows :- “It is cowardice to run from life for trifles. It seems from the circumstances that the deceased was over anxious to have a child but his failure to get a child from his wife for reasons beyond her control, brought the deceased under depression. Nobody can be held responsible if such over sensitive man decided to commit suicide for nothing. Commission of suicide by the deceased after coming to know that his wife cannot conceive a child, is not a provocation or abetment on the part of the wife or anybody. Nobody must be held responsible for the death in such cases.” It is, therefore, evident that a categoric finding has been returned by the Sessions Judge, pertaining to the allegation of suicide having been committed by Ajay Kumar. It is settled principle of law that the Court while framing the charge has to prima facie see the material which is before it. But apparently, this finding could not have been brought to the notice of the trial Court as it came into existence subsequently. In view of the fact that a judicial finding has been returned regarding the death of Ajay Kumar in which it has been stated that for the death of the deceased nobody was to be held responsible and it was his sensitivity alone that contributed to his demise, I am of the opinion that the Court of trial needs to take into consideration this aspect of the matter before subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of trial. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the trial Court who shall Criminal Revision No.1784 of 2010 -3- pass a fresh order keeping in view the aforesaid observations and amend the charge accordingly only to the extent indicated above. Disposed of. (MAHESH GROVER) August 5, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO