1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Jitendra Singh @ Jitu Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1243/2010) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. Date of Judgment: December 07, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Suresh Kumar Sharma, for the petitioner. Ms.Alka Bhatnagar, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2010, passed by the Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 498A, 328 and 307 IPC, the petitioner has approached this Court. Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that in the very first statement given on 8.6.2009, the complainant did not state anything about being given poison by the petitioner. It is only subsequently, in her 2 supplementary statement, that she develops the story that “after she had prepared the rice, the petitioner mixed some poison. Due to eating of the said rice, her condition deteriorated when she reached her paternal home”. She has also claimed that “the petitioner forced her to leave the matrimonial home and to go to her paternal house”. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, subsequently the story has been developed in order to implicate the petitioner under Section 307 IPC. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has failed to notice the exaggeration made by the complainant on subsequent dates. Moreover, the learned Judge has also failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant is not a reliable witness. On the other hand, Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously contended that the claim made by the complainant, in her supplementary statement, is corroborated by the FSL report which is available in the charge- sheet. According to the FSL report, there is presence of Organophosphorous Insecticide. Thus, the FSL report corroborates the statement of the complainant that the petitioner had mixed poison/insecticide in the food consumed by her. Moreover, the learned Judge is merely required to see the existence of a strong prima facie case. In 3 light of the FSL report, a strong prima facie case for offence under Section 307 is clearly made out against the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the charge-sheet. It is true that initially in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant did not mention about the poison being mixed in the food. But what would be the validity of her supplementary statement, and what would be their veracity, cannot be gone into at this juncture. The fact remains that in her supplementary statement, she does claim that after she had cooked the rice, the petitioner had mixed the poison, which he had bought a day earlier, in the food. Her statement is further corroborated by the FSL report which clearly shows the presence of an insecticide. Thus, a grave suspicion is created that the petitioner may have committed the alleged crime. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that at the time of framing of the charge, the learned Judge is concerned only with the existence of grave suspicion, or a strong prima faice case. At the initial stage of framing of the charge, the learned Judge cannot meticulously discuss and shift through the evidence. Referred to Sajjan 4 Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2010) 9 SCC 368]. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki