Rohit Kumar vs State Of J&K

The petitioner has challenged order dated 27.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby charges for offence under Sections 294/506/509/306 RPC have been framed against the petitioner.

Before coming to the grounds of challenge, let me give a brief background of the facts leading to the filing of this petition.

A charge-sheet came to be filed by the police of Police Station, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu before the learned trial Court. The said proceedings arose out of FIR No.113/2015. As per the allegations made in the charge-sheet, petitioner-accused used to stalk the deceased and he would often hurl obscene remarks upon her. It was further alleged that the accused-petitioner would pressurize the deceased to go with him and when the deceased declined to do so, the petitioner-accused defamed her and this caused great anxiety to her. Because the deceased did not succumb to the tactics of the petitioner-accused, he would call her as an ill charactered lady and he would also call her son a drug addict and her mother-in-law as a lady of bad repute. On the date of occurrence i.e. 19.09.2015, the accused-petitioner called the deceased a prostitute. The deceased could not bear it anymore and she committed suicide by putting herself on fire after pouring kerosene oil upon her body.

As per the prosecution case, the statement of the deceased was recorded in the hospital while she was undergoing treatment in presence of the witnesses and in her statement she narrated the allegations as mentioned herein before. On the basis of her statement, FIR came to be registered and after investigation of the case, offences under Sections 294/506/509/306 RPC were found established against the petitioner against whom the challan came to be filed before the learned Trial Court.

It appears that the learned Trial Court after hearing the learned defense counsel as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and after perusal of the material on record came to the conclusion that there are grounds to presume that the accused has committed offence under Sections 294/506/509/306 RPC. Accordingly, vide the impugned order charges for aforesaid offences were framed against the petitioner. It is this order, which is under challenge before this Court.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the FIR and the material on record of the challan do not make out any offence against the petitioner; that ingredients of the offences with which the petitioner has been charged are not made out from the material on record; that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner had any active involvement in commission of suicide by the deceased; that the material on record shows that the suicide of the deceased is not direct result of the alleged acts of the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. I have also gone through the material on record including the trial Court record.

Section 268 and Section 269 of J&K Criminal Procedure Code lay down the procedure for discharging/framing of charge against the accused. These provisions read as under:-

"265. Discharge If upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."

Framing of charge

(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he may frame charge against the accused and by order, transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any Judicial Magistrate competent to try the case, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any Judicial Magistrate to whom a case may have been transferred shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure provided for the trial of warrant cases instituted on police report.

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1) the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."

A conjoint reading of Sections 268 and 269 of J&K Cr.P.C. reveals that if the Sessions Judge, upon consideration of record of the case and after hearing the parties, finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, an order of discharge has to follow and if, upon consideration of aforesaid material, the Sessions Judge finds that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable by the Court, framing of charge has to follow.

Now coming to the facts of the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner-accused is that he used to tease the deceased inasmuch as he would hurl abuses upon her, make obscene remarks against her, defame her by calling her a prostitute and a woman of ill character. Besides this, he would even defame the son and mother-in-law of the deceased. These allegations are supported by the statement of the deceased, which she made in the hospital just before her death. The said statement is admissible in evidence as 'dying declaration' in terms of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Besides this, there are statements of witnesses comprising family members and neighbourers of the deceased, who have also supported the version given by the deceased in her 'dying declaration'. Statement of Naresh Kumar, the son of the deceased, has been recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. and he has also supported the case of the prosecution.

In the face of aforesaid overwhelming material on record, it cannot be stated that the allegations made in the charge-sheet against the petitioner are without any substance.

It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner has taken any active part in instigating the deceased for committing suicide and, as such, no offence is made out against him. The submission of the learned counsel is without any merit because there is overwhelming evidence on record to show that the petitioner would harass and tease the deceased almost on daily basis and he would defame her by calling her a lady of ill repute and a prostitute. It is on account of these activities of the petitioner that the deceased was driven to commit suicide.

At the stage of framing of the charge, even a strong suspicion against the accused is good enough to frame charge against him. In the present case, there is not only strong suspicion but overwhelming material on record to prove the complicity of the petitioner-accused. Therefore, there was no alternative left with the learned Trial Court but to frame the charges against the petitioner.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court does not call for any interference. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.