Bishan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist, who is charged with for commission of offence under Section 306 I.P.C., which was registered at Police Station Patti Aadichaura, Tehsil Didihat, District Pithoragarh.

After the conduct of the investigation and submission of the chargesheet No. 9/18 dated 31.08.18, which was submitted by the Investigation Officer before the Session Court and, consequently, a session trial has been registered, being Session Trial No. 25 of 2018, State Vs. Tanuja Chauhan and another. The learned Session Trial on considering the material which was brought before the Court, had framed a charge under Section 306 I.P.C. against the revisionist vide its order dated 15th December, 2018, its the chargesheet dated 15.12.2018, which has been challenged by the revisionist before this Court contending thereof that considering the evidence which has been brought on record, the charge which has been framed against him may not be tenable, being contrary to the evidence and is based on a wrongful appreciation of the evidence as the revisionist in his statement is that he was not present at the relevant time at the place of occurrence where and when the incident had occurred and there might be certain altercations between Tanuja and the deceased Hoshiyar Singh, amongst them being husband and wife.

He submits that looking to the circumstances which has resulted into the death of Hoshiyar Singh, it will not amount to be an abatement to suicide contained and defined under Section 107 of the I.P.C. because according to the argument extended by the learned counsel for the revisionist, the circumstances, which has been narrated therein may not fall within the exemption clauses as provided under Section 107, until and unless the same is established and the revisionist could not have been discharged for the commission of offence under Section 306 I.P.C. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under :-

"107 - Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who -

First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanations 1. A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing."

While on the other hand, the reasoning which has been assigned by the Sessions Court while framing in the impugned charge dated 15th December, 2018, is to the effect that on appreciation of the evidence whatever was available before the Sessions Court and on appreciation of evidence, finding recorded on mental and physical harassment has been recorded against him, which has resulted into leading to conclusion of possibility of the administering of some poisonous material resulting into the death of Hoshiyar Singh, which after obtaining of the vicera report, it has been affirmed that the cause of death was on account of administration of poisonous material to the deceased person. This could also be substantiated from the panchnama and the conclusion drawn, which reads as under :-

"हम पंचों की राय में मृतक होशियार सिंह की मृत्यु जहरीला पदार्थ खिलाने से हुई है। फिर भी मृत्यु का सही कारण जानने के लिए शव का पोस्ट मार्टन किया जाय।"

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that if the report is taken into consideration, particularly panchnama, the finding which has been recorded, on which, he places reliance, though this Court may be in agreement to the conclusion on the same, that the cause of death was on account of administering of some poisonous material and that aspect was very well established in view of the finding of the vicera report.

As far as scope of interference while exercising power under Section 397 to be read with 401, the scope of interference against the framing of the charge is very limited and particularly when the Sessions Court in the circumstances of the present case when the Court below has applied its mind after considering the evidence on record and reports, has framed the charge. Thus its propriety and sanctity cannot be judiciously examined by this Court, while exercising the revisional power because the propriety of framing of the charge is exclusively on issue which is falling within the domain of the session trial. As it has been held out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2019 (2) Supreme 210, Pallavi Vs. Sate of U.T. Chandigarh and others, in para 7 that the interference against an order of framing of a charge which has been framed by the Session Court, after going through the merits of the material, ought not to be interfered or set aside by the revisional Courts while exercising its power under Section 397. Para 7 of the said judgment reads as under :-

"7. When the Judicial Magistrate has, based on the chargesheet and on the materials filed along with the chargesheet, satisfied himself, order of framing of charge against respondents no.2 and 3. At the stage of framing of charge, the court is concerned only with the aspect that there is prima facie materials presuming that the accused has committed the offence. At the initial stage the court is not called upon to examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the materials produced by the prosecution and also to examine whether the same are sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused thereon. The learned Sessions Judge, in our view ought not to have gone into the merits of the materials and erred in setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate framing charge against accused."

The Hon'ble Apex Court has propounded the ratio that as far as the aspect pertaining to the framing of the charge is concerned, it has to be arrived at based on the appreciation of the material by the Sessions Court and its judicious examination may not be within the scope of revisional Court to go into the propriety of the charge and particularly on the re-appreciation of evidence, which is being sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist in order to challenge the impugned order of framing of charge.

The learned counsel for the respondent had further placed reliance on yet again another judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court which is in the reported in 2019 (3) Supreme 171, State Represented by Deputy Superintended of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tamil Nadu Vs. J. Doraiswamy Etc. The Court has held that once the charge has been framed under Section 227, the interference by the revisional court at the revisional stage when the charge has been put to challenge it, will amount as if to exercising of the power under Section 228 for discharging a person who has already been charged by the Sessions Court by considering the evidence on record. That may not be the scope of exercise of power by the Revisional Court as a person who has already been charged by the Session Court based on the material, could only be scrutinized independently, upon considering the evidence which is to be led by the parties.

Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the revision and hence, the Revision is dismissed. The revisionist may have his any other recourse, which is available to him under law.

Consequently, the Revision is dismissed as having no merits. However, there would be no order as to costs.