1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR Cr.R.No. 881/2011 Layak Singh and another Vs. State of M.P For the Applicants : Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Prakash Gupta, PL. ORDER (oral) (03/11/2011) Per : U.C.Maheshwari J. The applicants/accused, have filed this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 26.4.2011 passed by the 4th Add. Sessions Judge (FTC) Damoh in S.T.No.74/11 framing the charges against each of the applicants for the offence of section 498-A,304-B and 302/34 of IPC. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on dated 23.6.2010 at Police Station Kotwali, Damoh, the duty doctor namely Raju Sthapak posted at district hospital Damoh sent a report in writing regarding unnatural death of Guddi Bai wife of Mohan Singh, aged 24 years through Lab Assistant, namely, Manoj Sharma to the police station Kotwali, on which, the inquest intimation bearing No.0/10 was registered according to which after sustaining the burn injuries, said Guddi Bai was brought to hospital for treatment and during the treatment, she succumbed to the injuries. In the course of its inquiry, the dead body panchnama was prepared and the body was sent for postmortem. After receiving such report, the inquest diary was sent to Police Station Hatta in whose territorial jurisdiction the alleged incident had taken place. On receiving such diary, the inquest intimation case No.30/10, was re-registered and as per the 2 prescribed procedure its further inquiry was carried out. On establishing the fact that Guddi Bai was married with one Mohan Singh, the son of the present applicants, within last seven years from the date of the incident and soon before death she was subjected to harassment and the cruelty by the present applicants on account of demand of dowry and due to such reason, by pouring kerosene on herself, she set fire, resultantly she sustained burn injuries and on taking to hospital, in the course of treatment, she succumbed to such injuries, on which, the Crime No.233/10 was registered on 10.7.2010 against the applicants at PS Hatta for the offence under section 304-B, 498-A and 302 read with 34 of the IPC and also under section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In investigation, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, various Panchnama and other papers were prepared, the interrogatory statements of the witnesses from the parental family and others were recorded. On completion of the investigation, the applicants were charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences. 3. After committing the case to the Sessions Court on evaluation of the charge-sheet the charges of section 498-A,304-B and 302 read with section 34 IPC were framed against the applicants. They abjured the guilt and being dissatisfied with such order, have come to this court with this revision with a prayer to discharge them from the aforesaid offence. 4. Applicants counsel, after taking me through the police report filed under section 173 Cr.P.C along with other papers of the charge-sheet argued that even on taking the face value of the entire charge sheet, as accepted in its entirety,even then the ingredients to frame the charge of section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC are not made out against any of the applicants. In continuation, by referring some document placed on behalf of the applicants on record which are not part of the charge sheet, the counsel has submitted that marriage of the deceased was 3 solemnized with Mohan Singh, the son of the applicants, in the year 2002 long before 7 years from the date of the alleged incident and, in such premises, the ingredients of section 304-B of the IPC are also not made out against any of them. So far the charge of section 498-A IPC is concerned, he has not made any submission to discharge the applicants from such charge. 5. On the other hand by justifying the impugned order framing the aforesaid charge against the applicants, Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer argued that such charge being in consonance with the papers of the charge-sheet and the collected evidence by the investigating agency, does not require any interference at this stage. However, he fairly conceded that either in the FIR or in the interrogatory statement of any of the witnesses, it has not come that the alleged fire was set on the deceased by pouring kerosene by any other person or the applicants. In continuation, he said that as per case of the prosecution, such kerosene was poured by the deceased herself before setting the fire. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of this revision. 6. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers of the charge sheet along with the impugned order and the charges framed by the trial court. Before considering the arguments advanced by the counsel, I deem fit to state here that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa Vs. Devendra Nath Padhi-AIR 2005 SC-359, at the stage of framing the charge, the documents or the papers which are not part of the charge-sheet placed on behalf of the defence, could not be taken into consideration. In such premises, I am of the considered view that the papers placed by the applicants which are not part of the charge sheet could not be taken into consideration for adjudication of this revision. In such premises it is held that the papers placed on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the case regarding date 4 of marriage of the deceased with Mohan Singh, could not be considered at this stage. However, it is made clear that the applicant shall be at liberty to take the defence on the basis of such papers at the appropriate stage of the trial. 7. Coming to consider the argument advanced by the counsel on merits of the matter, it is apparent from the FIR as well as the interrogatory statements of the witnesses belonging to the parental family of the deceased that deceased Guddi Bai was married with Mohan Singh, son of the applicants, before six years (i.e within seven years) from the date of the incident. It has also come in the interrogatory statements of the aforesaid witnesses that subsequent to marriage till her death, on account of demand of dowry either in the shape of cash or goods she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the applicant. In such premises, soon before death also, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on the part of the applicants. In view of such prima facie evidence, mere on the oral argument of the applicants counsel or on the basis of papers placed on behalf of the applicants which are not part of the charge sheet, it could not be deemed that the alleged marriage of the deceased was solemnized before seven years from the date of alleged incident. After going through the interrogatory statements of Phool Rani, Roop Singh Lodhi, Geeta Rani Lodhi, Mahendra Singh and Sita Ram, I have found sufficient prima facie circumstance and ingredients for framing the charge against the applicants for the offence of section 304-B and 498-A of the IPC. So till this extend, the findings of the impugned order framing charge for the aforesaid section 304-B and 498-A of the IPC are hereby affirmed. 8. So far the charge of section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC is concerned. After going through the entire papers of the charge sheet including the FIR and the interrogatory statements of the above mentioned witnesses and also the available medical evidence and the above mentioned postmortem report of the 5 deceased, I have not found any circumstances showing that the alleged kerosene was poured on the deceased Guddi Bai by any of the applicants or the alleged fire was set by any of them. It is apparent from the papers of the charge sheet that the alleged kerosene was poured by the deceased herself and the alleged fire was also set by herself. In view of such clear cut evidence of the charge sheet, the charge of section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC could not be sustained as the same has been incorrectly framed by the trial court against the applicants. I would like to mention here that to clarify the aforesaid position from the papers of the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer was also called before the court to assist the learned Panel Lawyer. With the assistance of such Police Officer, learned Panel Lawyer has also stated that the ingredients for the offence of section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC are not made out against the present applicants. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order till framing the charge of section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC being perverse and contrary to the law deserves to be set aside. 10. Therefore, by affirming the charge framed against the applicants for the offence under section 498-A and 304-B of the IPC , this revision is allowed in part and the charge framed for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC is hereby set aside. Pursuant to it, they are discharged from such charge of section 302 read with section34 of the IPC. Till this extent the impugned order of the charge is modified while the remaining findings of the same are hereby affirmed. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL 6