1 69 W 4b IJ 1 CrloRNol774 of2009 O82MI 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1 CHANDIGARH CrlRNo2774 of2009 082M1 Date ofDecisionl March 8 2010 JatinderKaur JitenderKaur Petitioner V 1 State and others 0 CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA 0 Presentl MrAshit Malik Advocate 0 for thepetitioner I MrMAnande AddAGHaryana for no1 Z MrRaj Mohan SinghAdvocate n for nos to 5 I 08 0 RAM CHAND GUPTA J 7 Z 1 The presentrevlSton petition has been filed underSection 401 m of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 6forshort the Cr against NlJl 1 dated72009 passedby the Court of Additional Sesslons Judge uraei Kurukshetra in Criminal case 116 of 2009 arisingout of FIR No72 dated 12122008 under Sections of the lndian Penal Code for short the IPC vide which it was held that there ls no sufOcientgroundfor presuming that the committed an offence punishable under Sectlon 307 IPC and further that there are sufficient groundsfor presuming that have committed offences punishable under Sections 406149811323 and 506 readwith Section34 IPC and hencethe case was transferredfor trial to the Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.20 11: 09 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 70 A 11 CrRNo2774 of 2009 OON0 2 1 Chief Judicial Kurukshetra for offences under Sections read with Section34 IPC ofall the four accused 2 I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and have gone through the wholerecordcarefully 3 Brieflystated the presentFIR was on thecomplaint flled bySmtJitenderKaur wife ofNawab Singhaccused on the 1 that she was marriedwith Nawab Singhas per Hindu rites andceremonies 0 on 15 1 003 and thatsufficient dowrywas given byher parentsat the tiine 0 I of Out ofthe wed40cka daughter was aJsoborn who is now five t years old However her husband Nawab Singhfathern4aw Singhmothern4aw GurbachanKaur Devai Sartajand Z Nanad slstern4aw Harpreet Kaur were not satised with the dowrygiven r byher parentsand theyused to harassher on account of demandof more I dowryand theyused to giveher beatingsMany were also 08 m convenedbut to no effect About two yearsago brought Rs 7 lacs from her father and had giventhe same tothe accused The accused Z behavedproperly for some time however for the last few daysaccused Qm raised demand of Rs O lacsbysaying that parentsof the are IlWd io America and havingenough money however flatly aeeme refusedon the pleathat her parentswere not in a position to fulfiIl the said demand 4 Further are thaton 15122008 at about 1000 am HardeepSinghfatherein4aw GurbachanKaur inothern4aw caughthold of by her hair whereas accused Sartajbrotheralaw and Harpreet Kaur sistetllaw put a chunni aroundher neck with an intention to kill her and pulledthe same and proclailned that if she would Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.20 11: 09 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 1 CrRN01774 of2009 08MI not bringRsl O Iacsfrom her home theywouldkill her Theyalso gave to her On herraising alarm all the four accusedwent on the roof and was turned out of the matrimonialhome After to the house of her parentsshe nanaled entlre storyto her brothersnamelyJasbir Singhand Surender Singhwho broughther to Civil HospitalKurukshetraandgot her admitted 1 t 5 was medicolegallyexamined at LNJP Hospital 0 Kurukshetra on 15122008 at 3A5 p and the followinginjurieswere C0 I found on her personl C5 i1Contusion of size 6 x l cm on neck rightside situated I Z ii9Contusion three ln numbersof different Slze and shape over C lower back situated parallelto each other and obliquely I swollen Swelling present 08 110 iiijContusion ofsize 5 x 2 cm over rightIower Ieginteriorly 7 ivScratch ofsize 6 cm over lett lowerlegmiddle third Z ofpainleft knee No externallnJury seen 05 ll 6 Injuries were opinedto be caused by the bIunt weapon and MJ durationofthe same was within 12hours Injuries no and 4 were declared simpleand injuries no 1 2 and 5 were keptunder observation However there was no furtheropinionregarding the nature of the said injuriesand hence learned trial Court has rightlytaken the said injuries as simple I tl nature 7 It has been contended by learned counsel for the revlSIOn petitioner that chunni was put around the neck of the by accused Sartajand HarpreetKaur while the other accusedcaughthold of Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.20 11: 09 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 CrleR1V0774of2009 08Ml e4 herand that the same was also pulledIt is further contendedthat as per medico legalreport injury was also found around the neck of the It is further contendedthat this very fact goes to primafacie showthat intentionof accused was to kill the lt has funher been that at the stageof framing of chargeeven strongsuspiclOn lS for the framingof charge andthat the intentionis to be m l from all the circumstances It is further arguedthat the 0 reinained unfit to make the statement for two daysand the 0 statement of witnesses stands corroborated by medical C I evidence Hence it is contendedthat leamedAdditional SessionsJudgehas erredin the accusedfor offenceunder Section 307 IPC Z m 8 He has also placed rellance upon State of MadhyaPradesh Ve Mohan Lal Soni RCR 452 and SanghiBrothers I Oll Indorel Pvt Limited v SanjayChoudharyand orSe 2008 RCR r10 6Criminall 640 7 9 On the otherhand it has beenarguedbyIearnedcounselfor the Z that from a bare perusal of the itself no llhJL1ffence under Section307 IPC is madeout It has beencontendedthatthere wasonlya contuslon of size 6 x l cm aroundthe neck and the same appears to be self inflicted as contusion of such a size is not possibleif a chunni dupattais pulledaround the neck It is further contended that from the avertnentS lIl the complaintitself the requisiteintention or knowledge cannot be attributedto the accusedand that at the most there was threatto the to fetch amount of Rs l O lacs from her father lt is funher argued that allegedlyleft the houseof her in4aws of her own and reached the house of her parentsand narrated the whole facts and Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.20 11: 09 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 0 CrleRlVoe2774of2009 082M1 Se hence it is contendedthat a false reporthas been from the medical offlcer ofKurukshetrathatshewas not flt to lnake statement for two days 10 There is no dispute the legal that at the time of framing of chargeonlyprimafacie case is to be seen and even if there is strong suspicionabout the COllllnlSSlOll of offence and the involvementofthe accused it is suflicientfor the Couit to framecharge and 1 C that there lS no of the opinionabout the prospectof 0 the conviction Law lS also well settled that veracity and effect of the 0 I evidence which the proposesto adduce are not to be C5 I gone into at that stage 11 In Mohan Lal Sonis case supra9 OIl which reliancehas been Z m placedby the presentrevisioloetitioner it was observed as under bv C HonbleApexCourt I ll XX Xx Xx XX c6 Q0 As is evident from the extractedaboveif the m7 Court is satisfled that a primafacie case made out for Z 1S tl proceeding furtherthen a charge hasto be framed Per Contra 00411 if the evidencewhich the proposes to produce to prove theguiltofthe accused even iffullyaccepted beforeit 1S bythe crossvexamlnatlOll or rebuttedbythe defence evidence if any cannot show that accused committed the particular offence thenthecharge can be quashed 12 Fromthe decisionsreferredto in the same and the decisionsalreadyreferred to above there was no bar to consider the materialon record in the case on handwhich was col lected duringthe course of and produced Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.20 11: 09 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 04 CrleRNol774 of 2009 082M1 6 beforethe Court and in vlew earlierbythe HighCourt 49 12 In Union of India ve Prafulla Kumar Samal AlR 1979 SC 366 the of Section227 of the CrPC Were consideredand the Hone Courtenunciatedthe broad be keptin vlew for thepurposeof framingcharge as under 10 Thus on a considerationof the authorities inentioned 0 above thefollowing emergel 0 I l9 That theJudgewhile the of framing C9 the charges under Section227 ofthe Code hasthe undoubted I power to sift and weighthe evidence for the liinitedpurpose Z of findingout whetheror not a prilnafacie case againstthe accusedhasbeen madeout 2 Where the inaterials placedbefore the Court disclose 08 rlo grave susplClOn againstthe accused which has not been the Coult will be fullyjustifled in framing Z a charge and with the trial Om 01111Jx 39 The test to determinea primafacie case would naturally depend upon the factsof each case and it is difflcult to lay down a rule of universalapplicationBy and largehowever if two views are equallypossibleand the Judgeis satisfied that the evidence produced before him while givlngrise to some susplClOIlbut not grave suspicionagainstthe accused hewill be fullywithin hisrightto discharge the accused 649That in exercising his under Section 227 of the Codethe Judgewhich underthe presentCode ls a senlOT Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.20 11: 09 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 1 4 1 CrlRNo2774 of2009 0Ml 7 and Court cannot act merelyas a Post office or a mouthoiece of the but has to consider the broad ofthe case the total effect ofthe evidence and the documents before the court any basic infirmities in the case and so on This however does not mean that the Judgeshould tnake a rovingenquiry 1 lnto the pros and cons of the matter and weighthe evidence 0 as ifhe was a trial 15 C0 I 13 In Satish Mehra v Delhi Administration 1996 631RCR C 6Criminall 410 SCI it was reiteratedthat while the of framing of chargethe Judgehas undoubtedpower to sift and weighthe Z evidence for the limited purpose of flndingout whether a primafacie case againstthe accused has been made out and the test to determinea prima I facie case would naturallydependuponthe facts of each case and it was C6 m difficultto laydown a rule ofuniversal 7 14 In a recent renderedin State of MadhyaPradesh Ve Z Rameshwar and others 2009 RCR 709 it was observedby Llm Honble ApexCourt thatHighCourt should not ordinarily interferewith the llllvtl tFlCourts order offramingofchargeunlessthereis glaringinjustice 15 Hence in the context of this legalproposition it is to be seen as to whether learned al Court has committedany material or lllegality in holdingthatprimafacie no case for offence under Section307 IPC is made out againstthe It is to be seen as to whether the can be attributed the requisite to commit murder which would render them Iiable to trial and for the offence under Section 307 IPC alongwith other Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.20 11: 09 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 76 0 4 CrieRNoe2774of 2009 08MI e8 offences 16 It would be to reproduce Section 307 lPC in order to thecontentloninadebycounselfor both thepartieswhich reads asunderl Attempt of murderl Whoever does any act with such intentionor and under such circumstancesthat lf he m bythat act caused death he would be guiltyof murder shall be 0 with of eilher for a terlll 0 which may extendto ten years and shall also be liable to 6ne C49 and if hurt is caused to any person by such act the oHender I shall be liable either to for Iife or to such Z as is hereinbeforementioned m Attemptby Iift convicts When any person under I this section is undersentence of for life he may 08 10 ifhurt is caused be with death 15 ew 17 Hence the thingto be borne in mind in Z the question whether an offence under Section307 IPC is inade out is the tl intention or and the requisiteintention or of the r accused must be such as is necessaryto constitutemurder Hence for the 1imited purpose of the questionas to whether there r7as lntention or knowledge that bythe act donebythe accused deathwould be caused the necessarymaterial on the record is to be perusedFor this purpose the Court at the time of framingof charge can sift and weigh the evidence and also can see from the totalityof the Clrcumstances as to whethertherewas an intention or knowledge to cause inurder 18 ln the presentcase the version of Jatinder Kaur 1S Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.20 11: 09 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 P4 Il CrleRNo2774 of 2009 41 8 that on 15122008 her fatherlaw HardeepSingh GurbachanKaur caught hold of her from her hair and other two accuscd e brother4nlawSartajand sisterlaw HarpreetKaur put a chunni around her neck and pulledthe same and thatif she will not fetch Rs 10 lacs from her home theyshall kill her and thereafterwhen she raised alarm she was turnedout of matrilnonialhome e 0 and the accused ran upstairsand she herself reached the house of her 0 Hence it hasbeen rightlyobservedbylearnedtrial Court thal from CA0 I the bare readingof above version of the it goes to show that CD allegedbeatingof includingallegedputting of chunni around I herneck was to coerce her to fetch Rs 10 lacsfrom her homeand Z for that purpose she was tumedout of matrimonial home and froin these m r allegations no inference can be drawn thatrequisite or intentiOIl I can beattributedto the accusedto kill the 08 r10 19 Furtherthe injuryon the neck was onlya contusion of size 6 X 7 1 cin which was simplein nature Shewas consciouswhen she was medico Z legallyexamined Shehad gone to the houseof her parentsfrom thehouse r of her in4aws of her own Hence it has also been rightlyobserved by IIlVl 11 learned trial Court that it lS not at this stageas to how the remainedunfit forgivingher statement for two daysas opined bythemedical officer 20 Further there is force in the argumentofleamed counsel for the that no opinion was soughtbythe policefrom the medical offlcer as to whether the contusion of size 6 x l cm found on the neck of the was to life or could cause deathin the ordinary course ofnature and ratherthe opinionsoughtwastoadvise as to Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.20 11: 09 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 e 1 f 1 CrlRNol774 of2009 O82M9 4 0 whetherdeathcould be caused if chunni had beenfurtherpulled 1 around the neck and a oplnlOn obtainedfrom thedoctorthat of thesamecouldnotberuledout of FSL onlyshowsthat the chunni was strongenough to beartheforceof pulland the same could be used for Hence taken into consideratlonall these facts including thekind of injuryfoundon the neck of the there1S m no sufficient groundfor that the have 0 committed an offence under Section307 IPC for the purposeof 0 I framing of charge 0 21 Hence taken into considerationthepeculiarfacts ofthe present I case as discussedabove and the siftingand weighingthe material Z on record for the limited purpose of chargeI am of the view that orderpassedby leamedAdditional SessionsJudgeKurukshetradoes not I suffer froln any material or illegalityThe same cannot be said 08 OO to be in any way perverseand hence thereis nothing as to whythis Court 1Ib Wo should interferein the order passedby learnedAdditionalSessionsJudge Z C Learned Additional SessionsJudge was fullyjustifledto examine if the is to betriedandifso for what offencelS to be tried more so when some of the offencesrelate to cases triable by the Court of Sessions and 1 other by the Court of MagistrateAs from the material produced on the record as discussedabove no case for framing of charge for offenceunder Section307 PC is madeout leamedAdditionalSesslonsJudgehasrightly transferredthe case fOr trial to Chief Judicial MaigstrateKurukshetra111 tenns of Section 228 CrPC with a direction to fralne formal charges againstthe for offences under Sections 4061498 A13231504read with Section 34 IPC Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.20 11: 09 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 79 C CrleReNo2774of2009 O82MI 1m 1 22 Hence presentrevlSlOll is dismissedbeingdevold of 1 anymerit 23 However it is madeclear thatnothing observedherein shall be construed as an of opinionof this Court on the decislonof the case on merit 831010 Ram r ea01U iTUIJldJ meenu Judge L 6 0 Note2 Whether referred to be Reporteror not2 YeslN 0 I9 Y Z 10f r S 401 I 08 r 3 Z Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.20 11: 09 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document