Quashed

Sharwan Ram and Anr. v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2012CRLR/897/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the framing of charges under IPC Sections 306, 120B, and 323. The High Court held that mere allegations of illicit relations did not establish instigation to suicide and quashed the charges due to lack of evidence. (45 words)

What did the court decide?

Impugned order framing charges against petitioners under IPC Sections 306, 120B, and 323 was set aside and stay petitions disposed of.

Sharwan Ram and Anr. Vs State — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR.

:::

JUDGMENT

:::

1.S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.897/2008 Sharwan Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan.

¶8

2.S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.875/2008

¶9

Laxman Ram. Vs. State of Rajasthan.

¶10

Date of Order :: 3 February, 2012.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶12

Mr.Sunil Mehta, for the petitioners in Cr.L.R. No.897/2008 Mr.RS Choudhary, for petitioner in Cr.L.R. No.875/2008

¶13

Mr.KK Rawal, PP for the respondent State.

¶14

BY THE COURT :

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

These Revision Petitions have been preferred by the respective petitioners challenging the order dated 29.7.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT), Nagaur in Sessions Case No.22/2008 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 306, 120B and 323 IPC.

¶17

Succinctly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the case are that one Bhinya Ram submitted a report on

¶18

¶19

11.11.2007 at P.S. Nagaur with the allegation that he came to know through a telephonic intimation that his son Poonam Chand had committed suicide by hanging himself. He further states that his son along with his wife Bhanwari live in their own house and he lives in neighbouring house and he had gone out on the day of occurrence. On coming back, his nephew Laxman informed him that Manish and Deepak, sons of the deceased, had informed him about the door of their father's room being locked from inside. On this, Laxman went to the house and managed to have the door opened on which it was seen that Poonam Chand was hanging from a noose. A suspicion was expressed on Bhanwari w/o Poonam Chand and Shrawan Jat about the death of Poonam Chand. The police was informed and on enquiry by the police, Bhinya Ram revealed that Poonam Chand had committed suicide because of the illicit relations between Bhanwari and Shrawan. On this information, inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. Thereafter, Hansraj, brother of the deceased, filed a complaint in the Court of C.J.M., Nagaur against Shrawan, Laxman, Shiv Kumar and Bhanwari regarding them having murdered the deceased and for various other offences as well. The complaint was forwarded to the Police Station Nagaur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. where FIR No.495/2007 was registered for the offences under Sections

¶20

¶21

323, 347, 302, 460, 201 and 120B IPC. Subsequent to the investigation, the police proceeded to file charge-sheet in the matter for offences under Sections 306, 120B and 323 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge wherefrom, it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FT), Nagaur. The accused contested the proposed charges and submitted that ex-facie allegations of the prosecution even if they were accepted to be true at its highest, then also, there was no material on the record of the case to show that the petitioners herein were responsible for commission of suicide by the deceased or that they had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The learned trial judge, however, proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners as aforesaid by the impugned order. Hence, being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present revision petition.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that merely because the prosecution had come out with the theory that Bhanwari and Shrawan were having illicit relations, that could not be by itself a fact to assume that the deceased committed suicide because of the said conduct of these two accused. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the purposes of framing a charge under Section 306 IPC, there has to be positive evidence on the record to show that the

¶23

¶24

accused had instigated the deceased to commit the suicide. It is also submitted that even if the allegations of prosecution are accepted to be true at its highest also, there is no material by which it can be assumed that the accused acted in any manner so as to leave no room for the deceased but to commit suicide. Referring to the statements of Bhinya Ram, Hansraj and Laxman, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the highest allegations as per these statements of prosecution witnesses which have also been recorded after a great delay, the story of the prosecution is only to the effect that Shrawan used to come to the house of deceased Poonam Chand while the deceased used to work at Mumbai. It is further alleged that when the deceased came back from Mumbai on 1.11.2007, he had a quarrel with Sharwan but beyond that, there is no other allegation regarding any act of the accused which could be considered to be an instigation to the deceased to commit suicide. It is further submitted that when accused Shrawan and Shiv Kumar came to the house of Poonam Chand a day before the incident, then Bhanwari is stated to have told the deceased that the money which is due to Shrawan, should be returned back to him. Thereafter, Bhanwari went away with Shrawan. At that time, both the sons of Poonam Chand were with him at his house. Counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the statement of Manish, 10 years old son

¶25

¶26

of the deceased, who has stated that on 10.11.2007, many persons had come to meet his father on which they were offered tea and cigarette. The witness himself had gone to meet his grand mother with his father and mother i.e. deceased Poonam Chand and accused Bhanwari and thereafter at about 8 O' clock, Shrawan Ram, who as per the witness is stated to be Dharam Bhai of Bhanwari, came to the house and thereafter, the deceased and Shrawan consumed food together and that they took the food in one plate and then Shrawan went away. The witness has further stated that during the course of day, Shiv Kumar's motor cycle has been retained by his father and in the next morning, his father was found hanging inside the room. The witness has specifically stated that his father and mother had never quarrelled with each other and that no quarrel took place between his father Shrawan, Shiv Kumar and Laxman. Thus, relying on this statement, it is argued that the prosecution has produced no evidence on the record of the case to show that the petitioners were in any manner responsible for the death of Poonam Chand. It is submitted that though the prosecution has produced certain call details on the record but no supporting documents showing as to who was the holder of the mobiles concerned, has been produced on the record nor is there any evidence showing that the mobile call details linked the accused with

¶27

¶28

the alleged crime. Thus, it is prayed that the charges framed against the accused be quashed.

¶29

Per contra, learned PP has refuted the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused petitioners and submitted that at the stage of framing of charges, only a prima-facie opinion that there is material enough for proceeding against the accused, is required and that the evidence in detail has not to be considered at the stage of framing of charges. It is also submitted that because of the illicit relations between the petitioners – Bhanwari and Shrawan, the deceased was left with no other alternative but to commit suicide. Thus, it is submitted that the order framing charges deserves to be accepted.

¶30

I have given my thoughtful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the order impugned as well as the record of the case.

¶31

For a proper consideration of the issue raised by way of the present petitions, the charges which have been framed against the accused need to be considered. They read as follows :-

¶32

“पहल� : यह क� द�. 10 व 11.11.07 �� रम�य�न� र�त� �� क�स� स�य व�� रण� ��ल�न� न�ग�र �� प�न�च � ववश न�ई न� अपन� ��न �� फ��स� ख��र आत�हतय� �� थ� और आपन� अथ�)त भ�वर,��व� न� प�न�च � �� पम- ह�त� ह.ए एव� शवणर�� ग��र�, मसय�र�� उफ) म2व�. ��र उफ) म2वल�, मलछ�ण उफ) लक�णर�� न� भ�वर,��व� �� सहय�ग� ह�त� ह.ए । आप �.लज7��न द�र� प�न�च � �� आत�हतय� क�ए 7�न� �� .ष:�रण

¶33

¶34

क�य�। इस :��र आपन� भ�.��.स�. �� ध�र� 306 �� तहत �ण>न�य अपर�ध क�य� 7� क� ��र� :स�ज�न �� ह@।

¶35

��सर� :- उक द�न� � स�य व सथ�न पर अथव� इसस� प�व) आपन� भ�वर,��व�, शवणर��, स�य�र�� उफ) म2व�. ��र उफ) म2वल�, मलछ�ण उफ) लक�णर�� सह अमभय.कगण �� स�थ म�ल�र प�न�च � �� आत�हतय� �रन� ह�त. �.ष:�ररत �रन� �� अव@ध �D तय ��ररत �रन� �� सह�तत �, और उस�� आपर�धध� ष>य � �� 2र,� रह� ऐस� �र आपन� भ�.��.स�. �� ध�र� 120 ब� �� तहत �ण>न�य अपर�ध ��ररत क�य� 7� क� ��र� :स�ज�न �� ह@। त�सर� :- उक द�न� � स�य व सथ�न पर अथव� इसस� प�व) आपन� प�न�च � ववश न�ई �� स�थ उस�� आत�हतय� �रन� स� प�व) सव�चछ�प�व)� �. न��ल� स� ��रप�ट �र उपहतत ��ररत ��। ऐस� �र आपन� भ�.��.स�. �� ध�र� 323 �� तहत �ण>न�य अपर�ध ��ररत क�य� 7� क� ��र� :स�ज�न �� ह@।"

¶36

Apparently, though in the order framing charges, a reference has been made to the alleged illicit relations between Bhanwari and Shrawan but in the charges which have been framed against the accused, no such fact has been mentioned.

¶37

In the opinion of this Court, even if the prosecution story is accepted to be true at its highest, merely because of the allegation that Bhanwari and Shrawan were having alleged illicit relations, it cannot be inferred that by that Act, an instigation was given to the deceased for committing suicide. The complaint which has been filed by Hansraj in this case is rather to the effect that the deceased was done to the death i.e. he was murdered. No such evidence has been collected during the course of investigation. The best witness who could have known about commission of any

¶38

¶39

illegal act by the accused leading to the commission of suicide by the deceased, is his son Manish, who as noted above has stated nothing to this effect. Rather he has stated about the cordial relations between the accused and the deceased.

¶40

Resultantly, this Court is of the view that there is no material on the record of the case by which any logical conclusion can be arrived at that the petitioners in any manner tortured or pressurised the deceased or instigated him to commit the suicide. The charges under Sections 306 and 120B IPC which have been framed against the petitioners cannot thus be sustained. The remaining charge under Section 323 IPC which has been framed against the accused for an alleged assault on the deceased but as has been mentioned above, there is no such evidence on the record of the case to show that the accused had assaulted the deceased before his death. The post mortem does not show any mark of violence except the ligature mark. Admittedly, the ligature mark is as a result of suicidal hanging of the deceased. Thus, the order framing charges against the accused petitioners being absolutely illegal and contrary to the facts and material available on the record, is hereby quashed.

¶41

In view of the above discussion, both these Revision Petitions succeed and the order dated 29.7.2008 passed by

¶42

¶43

learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT), Nagaur in Sessions Case No.22/2008 framing charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 306, 120B and 323 IPC, is hereby set aside.

¶44

Stay petitions also stand disposed of.

¶45

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

¶46

S.Phophaliya

Sharwan Ram and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharwan Ram and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar Khemani and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Laxman Singh Vs State and Anr.

Gopal Lal Sharma Vs State

Ms Prime Chem Oil Ltd.and Ors. Vs State

Harish Chandra Vs State and Anr.

Surendra Kumar and Ors. Vs State and Anr.