NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 08.05.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he has framed charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this case are that the brothers of the deceased, namely Ram Kumar Aswani and Naresh Kumar Aswani had made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 19.08.1991. It was averred in the complaint that their sister, namely Bharti Singh, was married to Narendra Singh, petitioner one year ago. Further, it was averred that in extremely abnormal circumstances, Smt. Bharti Singh was found hanging to the ceiling fan at about 12.00 in the night, on 10.08.1991. It was mentioned in the complaint that the efforts were being made to give the incident a colour of suicide, whereas there were circumstances, which shows that it was a deep conspiracy of murder. THEreafter, the complainants have given various circumstances in this regard. As for instance, it has been mentioned that the deceased Smt. Bharti was a brave and bold lady who had married with Narendra Singh against the wishes of her family members and in no circumstances, she would have committed suicide. THE deceased had invited some persons for a meal on the next day i.e. 11.08.1991. She had prepared Mehandi, which shows that there was no reason or intention or prior preparation for committing suicide. It was also mentioned in the complaint that petitioner had married earlier also but had left his wife. It was averred in the complaint that the petitioner was not a man of good character and he had relations with other girls. He is said to have been involved in a murder case earlier. He was the main accused in that case and the police had been searching him. A Muslim person, who was going on a bicycle was murdered in Mahesh Nagar and his deadbody was thrown on the railway track. But as the petitioner had contacts at the higher level he remained absconding from the office as well as residence and had also left his sister at Jaipur. Later on, the said criminal case was dropped on account of some recommendation. Apart from it, it was mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner was involved in Jaipur Communal Riots during which he had burnt down many shops and his leg was also got burnt. It was also stated in the complaint that in the room, where the suicide is said to have been committed, there was only one folding bad and a small table. THE deceased Smt. Bharti was pregnant of eight months and she was not in a condition to get herself hanged to the fan, which was at a height of 10 feet, even by climbing on the table. Further, it was mentioned in the complaint that although both, petitioner and deceased, were working in the High Court and getting good salaries, but they did not have much house hold articles and the entire money was being spent by the petitioner in consuming liquor. On the day of incident, also the petitioner was under intoxication. It has also been mentioned in the complaint that despite of hanging to the ceiling fan, eyes and tong of the deceased Smt. Bharti were not coming out. A note is said to have been written by Smt. Bharti, which was very short and torn from the top as well as bottom. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner was always in need of money and he had been demanding the same from complainant family. Few months ago, a loan was taken in the name of sister of the complainants and her Luna vehicle was also got sold even then the petitioner did not have money to buy a scooter. He had taken money from the complainants on many occasions. Apart from it, the petitioner used to demand money through their sister. It was stated in the complaint that in the interest of justice and in view of the aforesaid circumstances, re-inquiry be got conducted by the specialist, as the case of murder of their sister was being given the colour of suicide by petitioner. Further, it was prayed in the complaint that a case of murder of Smt. Bharti Singh may be registered against the petitioner Narendra Singh.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the considerations to be applied by the Court at the time of framing of the charge. As early as in the year 1977, in the case of State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the tests and considerations to be applied by Court while appreciating Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. THE Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 4 and 5 of the said case, has held as under:- 4. Under Section 226 of the Code while opening the case for the prosecution the Prosecutor has got to describe the charge against the accused and state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. THEreafter comes at the initial stage the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. 'THE Judge has to pass thereafter an order either under Section 227 or section 228 of the Code. If "the Judge consider that there is not. sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing", as enjoined by Section 227. If, on the other hand, "the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-.........(b )is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused', as provided in Section 228. Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. THE standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 or section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to 'see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the 260 initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. THE presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the, initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not if the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the, trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But, if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under section 227 or section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under section 228 and not under section 227. 5. In Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. THE State of West Bengal and an- other(1)-Shelat, J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the majority for the Court referred at page 79 of the report to the earlier decisions of this Court in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose (2) where this Court was held to have laid down with reference to the similar provisions contained in sections 202 and 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 "that the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction, and observed that where there was prima facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of a process could not be refused." Illustratively, Shelat J, further added "Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case."