Shibu Ravidas vs State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Order of framing alternative charge under Sections 306/34, 304-B/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- III, Dhanbad in S.T. Case No. 50/2019 is under challenge in the instant criminal revision petition.

As per the F.I.R. lodged by the mother of the deceased, Anita Kumari was married to petitioner No. 1- Shibu Ravidas on 30.04.2015. It is alleged that three months after the said marriage, the husband of the deceased and her in-laws used to assault her in reference to dowry demand.

On  03.06.2018  in  the  evening  at  7  o’clock,  accused  No.  1  on telephonic call, the informant and her elder daughter were abused and a demand of Bullet motorcycle was made and accused no.1 also threatened to kill her daughter. Next morning, she received information regarding death of her daughter. The informant expressed apprehension that her daughter had been done to death by her in-laws and thereafter, had been hanged.

On investigation, F.I.R. was lodged under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and charge sheet submitted under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was also taken under these Sections. After commitment, charge has been framed which is under challenge in the instant criminal revision petition.

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that alternative charge under Sections 304 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasvinder Saini and Others Versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 7 SCC 256.

Learned A.P.P. has raised two-fold objections. First is regarding the maintainability of the criminal revision petition after framing of charge. It is submitted that trial is at penultimate stage and as per the lower court records after evidence, seven witnesses have already been examined. Secondly, it is argued that there was no infirmity in framing of charge in view of Section 221 of the Cr.P.C. which specifically provides that in case of doubt, the Court has power to frame alternative charge.

In the present case, as per the post-mortem examination report, death was due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging. At the stage of framing of charge, it cannot be said with certainty of materials whether the death was on account of dowry demand or the abetment of suicide was caused and therefore, alternative charge has been framed.

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, I find much force in the argument on behalf of learned A.P.P. regarding the maintainability of the instant revision petition that order of framing of the charge was an interlocutory order, in view of the ratio laid down in V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI, 1980 Supp SCC 92 and was therefore, not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the Court and also considering the stage of trial, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

Criminal Revision petition stands rejected. I.A. No.3416 of 2022 is disposed of.