- (1.)This criminal revision filed on behalf of the petitioner accused Prince Sahu is directed against the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District- Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 545 of 2016, whereby it has been held that there are sufficient grounds against the petitioner Prince Sahu for framing of a charge under Section 306 and in the alternative 306 read with section 34 of the IPC.
(2.)The case of the prosecution before the trial Court may be summarized as hereunder: Deceased was married to the petitioner Prince Sahu on 27.1.2015. Thereafter, on 01.01.2016, her father Ramesh Sahu was invited to her matrimonial home on the occasion of birthday of her sister-in-law. At that time, the deceased told her father that her husband Prince suspects her character; therefore, she was in tension whereon Ramesh Sahu spoke to the petitioner, who told him that deceased had illicit relations with one Mushahid Musalman; therefore, he does not want to keep Rashmi and Ramesh should took her back. Hence, Ramesh took Rashmi back to her maternal home on 02.01.2016. On 07.01.2016, Rashmi consumed poison. She was treated in government hospital at Sihora and Victoria hospital at Jabalpur. Rashmi told her father on 25.01.2016 that aforesaid Mushahid is an auto- driver and about 2 years before the date of the incident, he used to tease and threaten her. One day, when no one was around, Mushahid came to her home and raped her. Thereafter, on several occasions, he took her to Khadra Jungle and raped her. On learning about aforesaid matter, Ramesh Sahu lodged the FIR against Mushahid. Pursuant to the first information report, Mushahid was arrested and sent to jail. On 02.02.2016, Rashmi spoke to her husband Prince on telephone but Prince abused her and told her that he would not keep her. Three or four days after Mushahid was sent to jail, his family members Shahuddin and Kadir Mansuri and two other persons came to the house of Ramesh Sahu twice or thrice and abused him and warned him to compound the matter. They threatened that otherwise they would kill his family members. Ramesh did not lodge the report of aforesaid incident in the police station for the fear of infamy. At around 12 p.m. on 03.02.2016, deceased had told her father Ramesh that she felt bad about the whole matter; therefore, he should give her poison. Thereafter, she went inside the room and committed suicide by hanging herself from roof by a scarf (Dupatta).
(3.)A perusal of the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 reveals that this is not an order framing charge against the petitioner. On 25.10.2016, the trial Court had heard the arguments on the charge and had recorded a finding that there are sufficient grounds for framing charge against petitioner Prince Sahu and co-accused Kadir Mansuri under Section 306 and in the alternative 306 read with section 34 of the IPC. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in asking the petitioner to wait for the framing of formal charge and then challenge that order. The court shall proceed on the assumption that the charge has indeed been framed against petitioner Prince Sahu pursuant to order dated 25.10.2016.