SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition impugning the order dated August 6,1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, whereby the charge under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and 406, IPC have been framed against the petitioners.
(2.) FEW facts are required to be set out at the outset in order to resolve the controversy posed before me. Deceased Savita Gupta was married to petitioner in 1992. It was in August, 1995 she had gone to her parents. After her stay with her parents for about three months, suddenly on November 8,1995 her dead body was found in small water tank located at the ground floor of her parents' house in mysterious circumstances. Dead body of her young daughter was also found in the same tank. Deceased Savita Gupta was reported missing by her brother on November 8,1995 at 8.00 p.m. at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar. Second report was submitted at 2.30 a.m. on November 9,1995 by Anil Kumar, wherein inter alia it was stated that Smt. Savita Gupta committed suicide alongwith her child by jumping into Water Tank. The Police Station Kotwali registered FIR No. 583 of 1995 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 406, IPC, against the petitioners. All the petitioners were taken into custody and thereafter released on bail. Investigation commenced and the police filed charge sheet for offences under Sections 306,406 and 498A, IPC against the petitioners in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, who vide its order dated January 6,1997 committed them to the Court of Sessions. Eventually the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, who vide its order dated August 6,1997 framed charge against the petitioners as under : Pramod Kumar - Under Section. 498A, 304B, 306 and 406, IPC. Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Abha Devi - Under Section. 304B, 306 and 498A, IPC. I have bestowed my anxious considerations to the arguments canvassed before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the record.
(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, it will be useful at this -juncture to analyse the legal position. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Priya Maharaj Sharan, AIR 1997 SC 2041=I (1997) CCR 250 (SC), propounded thus : 'At the stage of framing of the charge, the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.' ;