Criminal Revision No.1002 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Revision No.1002 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF ORDER : 7.9.2011 Harpal Kaur PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri J.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.B.S.Teji, Senior D.A.G. Punjab. MAHESH GROVER, J. In this revision petition the petitioner impugns the order dated 17.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda vide which a charge under Sections 304/201 I.P.C. has been framed against her. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the facts and the related material on record which, according to her, suggests that at best, a case under Section 304-A I.P.C. could be made out against the petitioner, but under no circumstances, could a charge under Section 304 I.P.C. be levelled against her. The allegations against the petitioner are that on the fateful day, i.e. 16.5.2010, an accident took place at an unmanned Railway Crossing in which one Criminal Revision No.1002 of 2011 -2- minor girl sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to them. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid a strong emphasis on the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, wherein it has been stated that Veerpal Kaur deceased aged 13 years was taken by the petitioner from her house with the consent of her mother and on the way, the car met with an accident in which said Veerpal Kaur lost her life. On the strength of this, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the facts suggest that at best, a case of negligence could have been made against the petitioner but under no circumstances, the charge under Section 304 I.P.C. could subsist against her. As against this, learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the conduct of the petitioner was extremely suspicious which has been fortified by several witnesses including the mother of the deceased who has stated that the deceased was taken away by the petitioner without their consent and after the accident, she was cremated in a hurry and when the maternal uncle of the deceased enquired about the post-mortem of Veerpal Kaur, then the petitioner along with the other accompanying persons told them that all the formalities had been completed and Veerpal Kaur had been cremated by taking her to the village. The witnesses have also stated that the petitioner was conversing on telephone and she abandoned the car while the deceased was left in the car itself and this fact along with the attempt to conceal the cause of death by immediately cremating the deceased indicates that there is something more to the occurrence, than the one what is sought to be projected before this Court by the petitioner. He thus, contends that the charge has rightly been framed. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. 2007(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1038 and a decision of this Court in Hukam Chand v. State of Punjab and others 1992(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 644. Criminal Revision No.1002 of 2011 -3- The aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are essentially on the issue that a charge under Section 304-A would be attracted to any rash and negligent act of a person and not necessarily limited to his acts arising out of the negligent driving. The facts of the case which invited the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were also pertaining to a train accident and upon subsequent investigation, a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed which was toned out to say that the accused could be charged under Section 304- A, and not under Section 302 I.P.C. Trying to draw parity with the said judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated likewise. I have considered the matter in its entirety. The Court at the time of framing of charge, is merely to see whether the material on record is sufficient to arouse the suspicion of the Court so as to compel an accused to face trial for the said charge which would also be commensurate with the allegations and the subsequent investigation. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni 2000(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 452, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down few essentials which are to be kept in mind at the time of framing of the charge. The same are extracted here below :- “(i) Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused - Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. (ii) Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view of finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose existence of all the ingredients constituting the Criminal Revision No.1002 of 2011 -4- offence. (iii) Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense of broad probabilities of the case. 1990 (4) SCC 76. (iv) Sessions Judge is not expected to hold a roving enquiry into the pros an cons of the case at the stage of framing charges by weighing the evidence as if he was conducting the trial. 1996(3) R.C.R. (Crl.) 411 (SC). (v) If the evidence which the prosecution possesses to prove the guilt, even if fully accepted without rebuttal, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence, then the charge can be quashed.” From the above, it is clear that the Court has to satisfy itself firstly regarding the fact that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused for this, the Court is not required to appreciate the entire evidence and is also not expected to explore that such a material is sufficient for convicting the accused. The other thing the Court is required to evaluate, is that the material is sufficient which if they are taken on its face value, satisfies the existence of all the ingredients of the offence so charged and for such purpose, the Court is merely to go into a cursory enquiry and not to dwell upon a roving enquiry. This Court in Criminal Revision No.337 of 2008 (Dimpey Gujral and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another) decided on 28.3.2008 held as under :- “It is true that mere description of injuries cannot form the Criminal Revision No.1002 of 2011 -5- basis of framing of charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and the most crucial ingredient is the intention or knowledge to cause death by such infliction of the injuries. When this is tested in the back-drop of the facts of the instant case, then it becomes abundantly clear that the trial Court certainly gave a miss to the essentials of the case and charged the petitioners with a formidable offence punishable under section 307 of the I.P.C. ... ... ... The Court, while framing a charge, is not precluded or rather, it is required to take a bird's eye view of the entire gamut of the allegations against the accused persons and has also to examine the nature of injuries and the manner in which the offence has been committed, to conclude whether a particular offence is attracted to the facts of the case or not so as to warrant the framing of charge for the said offence. ... ... ... At the time when the charge is framed, concededly, the person accused of committing an offence is in the zone of suspicion and, therefore, the Court is saddled with a responsibility to establish some sense of proportion while evaluating that suspicion in relation to the conceptualizing of an offence, its execution, and the ruthlessness of the perpetrator. If these factors do not reveal a diabolism of intent and ruthlessness in execution, then the charge necessarily has to be toned down in proportion with the aforesaid factors. As face is the index of mind, similarly these factors mirror prima facie the latent Criminal Revision No.1002 of 2011 -6- intent of the perpetrator of the offence. An accused cannot be burdened under the yoke of a charge of inflated offence when the facts, the injuries and the manner of commission of the offence point otherwise.” From the aforesaid and also from the facts on record, it is clear that the Court has committed no illegality in framing a charge under Section 304 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner, as there is some material to suggest a behaviour deviant from that of a prudent person, primarily, the fact that the cremation was resorted to in an undue haste and the fact that the mother has got recorded a statement that her daughter had been taken away without her consent for immoral purposes, which does not keep the petitioner away from the strong twilight zone of suspicion as per ingredients of Section 304 I.P.C. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) September 7, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO