1N Tm HIGH UOURE or“ J‘uulwmm : AT JABALPUR. wimllmu mVIbION \IUYLW “/2000. l. Dharam Singh Sahu son of Radheshyam ‘ t Sahu, aged 34 year's, / 2. suknmabai wife 6f Radheshyam sahu, aged 55 years, u‘t‘ Both reactants oi Dhobanpur , ?olice Station Gumr, alstrlct Burg (MP). ’ 7 A . ' gagglGAN’lltj Ri ' J If it Qgff’ ‘ w Vs. State of Madhya 1>radesh NON;gg£g§_§_l\g. gRlm‘mgL EggsmN U&Lg_§§r_;om 391/ gal OLME couggg ugggmixg ymuwuhg. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR .REVISION NC . 12 16/2000 a A PPLICANTS o Dharam Singh and another VERSUS State of M°Po State of M.P'. GRDER 4 Passed on 9°3°2001 ) By this petition under section 397 / 401 o£ the Code of Criminal Procedure,the applicants seek to challenge the correctness,validity and * propriety OE the‘order dated 29o5¢2000 passed in S.T.No. 38/2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Balod ( Durg ) framing the charges against the applicants for offence punishable g‘nder sections 306 and 498~A IPCa 2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Teminbai D/o Bhikamlal and Hiribai was married to applicant nonl Dharams ingh somewhere in the Rear 1992, The applicant no°2 Sukhmabai is the 1 mother of Dharamsingh and was mother-in—law of deceased Teminbaio Out of the wedlock Dharamsingh and Teminbai were blessed with three children” 3° According to the applicants,'1‘eminbai was keeping unwell for long time, therefore,time an again she was treated by the doctors and in the _A d -2- 3rd week of January, l999,‘she was admitted in the hospital. On 20°1099 said T’eminbai consumed poison and thereby committed euicide. 4.7 Immediately after the death inquest was made on 21°1°99 in which Bnikamlal,father of the deceased did not make any allegation against the applicants. It‘appears that some complaint was made by somebody in the name o£ Bhikamlal,thereforeg he again gave the statemento On 12.2a99 Bhikamlal in his subsequent statement submitted to the pqlice that he had no complaint against the present applicantsaOn 8.4;99 the S.D.Oa (P) sub- mitted h-is repoxt that Bhikamlal was denying the submission of the complaint and as he was not making any allegations against the applicants,the present was not a fit case for filing the challan against the applicantse He however submitted that final report be submitted by the Police. 5., All of a sudden on 14°6°99 Bhikamlal and Hiri Bai started making allegations against the present applicants and started asserting that applicant noal Dharamsingh was having w some illicit rela— tions with one Thanwarinbai and on earlier occa- Sion _ the applicanbmmad trw the deceased with cruelty and compelled her to go for abortion. They also stated that even at the time of second child the applicant Dharamsingh required the wife to go for abortion but this time Teminbai did not go for abortion and‘gave birth to Resmabai a In their statement they submitted that on earlier occasion they did not say anything against the present applicants either becanse 'o/f‘ their request u: @ or because of intimidation. But as Ehikamlal found himself restless he though proper to make report against the accused ‘personso 6° The learned counsel for the applicants submits that in View of the divergence in the statements of Bhikamlal,H.i-rjbai and others*present is a case for discharge ‘of the applicants because no reliance ‘ can be placed on the statement of Bhikamlal and V‘ Hiribai and in any case from the statement of Thanwa— rinbai with whom illicit relations have been alleged, it would appear that Dharamsingh was treating her as' sister,therefore,and, as no explanation is coming forth from the side of the prosecution, relating to earlier statement of Bhikamlal and Hiribai,they can not be relied upon and the applicants deserve to be discharged; On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that whether the statement or Bhikamlal dated 21°1u99 and 12.2.99 on the one side are to be relied upon , @‘a’s or the statements recorded on l4o6.99 are to be relied—upon, has to be considered by the trial Court during the course of trialo According to him said Bhikamlal is ‘yet to be examined and if he makes a proper case and gives a justifiable explanation in relation to the earlier statements,then the court may or may not ~convict the applicants but, as submitted by Shri Singh , 'present is not the stage to appreciate the evidence u) g( K‘ I, -4é 7a I have heard the parties at length and fave gone through the documents submitted by the applicants and. the case-diary papers” 8° True it is that deceased Teminbai died on 20°1o99 and on 21°1°99 the father of the deceased did not make any allegations against the present applicantso It is alas true that on 12°2c99 Bhikamlal again did not make any alle- gation against the present applicants but the fact remains that on 14°6o99 Bhikamlal and Hiribai did make a serious allegation;against the present applicants. It would be for the trial court to see whether the very first statement of Bhikamlal is to be relied upon or his changed version with any explanation by him has to be relied upon. At this stage if the court is required to examine the correctness and reliability of the two sets of the statements then this court will have to recorda finding that the applicants have committed an offence or noto It is not expected in a criminal revi- sion that the Revisional Court should scrutinise the evidence meticulously and should record its findings. If the evidence available on record supports framing of the charges then the revi- sional court would not interfere in such mattero The interference by revisional co’urt is per- missible only in cases where there is no evi— dence or there is no legal evidence mi to connect the accused with the alleged crime. The revi— sional court may also exercise its powers in a case where the evidence is absolutely shaky or is moon—shine and if the evidence available on a A J record same is not likely to ilead to conviction. The revisional Court can also exercise its powers ‘in a case where the prosecution in itself is contrary to law or is bad because of a particular ban imposed under the statutes. Revisional Court is not author‘ised to examine the evid ence meti— culously or scrutinise the same nor the revisional court is permitted to look into the evidence as if it is a trial Courte -5- é. In the present case the, available on record says that ments made by Bhikamlal intimidation exerted/extended evidence which is first of the state- because of pressure/ were by the present applicants9.Whether the prosecution proves a the ¢Au~s¢ we O conscience of the trial court in relation to the explanation submitted by the witnesses,would be a question to be considered by the said courto c 9. {his court to enter into the controversial fact and record finding either in favour of the state or in £avour of the accused° 10° f the death and satisfies the judicial The applicants would have fullest~ljberty to defend their case,projectl their defence and xmmuix confront the witnesses with their earlier statementsc I would leave it to the judicial discretion of the trial court t/o record a findirg 0. At this stage,it Would not be possible for <@ is accepted as it is then too the @ -6- in accordance with law. At this stage, I find no reason to interfere in the matter, W‘fhe petition deserves to and is a ccordingly dismis sed o Any observation made in this order if it touches the merit of the matter,the same shall not affect the déscre’tion and jurisdiction of the trial Court because the said observations have been made ‘ and the details have been given for the purposes of disposal of this revision onlyo a .The petition is accordingly dismissed. ¥‘% Sd/— ‘ R.S. Garg ‘ Judge 1‘ h Jy 0t iskhi