CRR/1179/2023 of PIYUSH SONI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 21 December 2023

1. Piyush Soni S/o. Shri Jaikishore Soni, Aged About 19 Years Resident Of - Shanker Chowk, Nayapara, P.S. - Gol Bazar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Resident Of - Shanker Chowk, Nayapara, P.S. - Gol Bazar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Smt. Rukhmani Soni, W/o. Shri Jaikishore Soni, Aged About 38 Years Resident Of - Shanker Chowk, Nayapara, P.S. - Gol Bazar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 38 Years Resident Of - Shanker Chowk, Nayapara, P.S. - Gol Bazar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicants

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gol Bazar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Raju Kumar Nishad, S/o. Shri Balduram Nishad, Aged About30 Years Security Guard, M.M.I. Narayana Hospital, P.S. -Tikrapara, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 30 Years Security Guard, M.M.I. Narayana Hospital, P.S. -Tikrapara, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Applicant

:Mr. Prafull N Bharat, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachchidanand Yadav, Advocateassisted by Mr. Sachchidanand Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No.1:Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu CAV Order

1. Challenge in this criminal revision is to the order dated03.10.2023 passed in ST No.132/2023 by which learned 7[th]Additional Sessions Judge Raipur framed charges underSection 302/34, 120B & 201 of the Indian Penal Code (forshort 'IPC') against the applicants.03.10.2023 passed in ST No.132/2023 by which learned 7[th]Additional Sessions Judge Raipur framed charges underSection 302/34, 120B & 201 of the Indian Penal Code (forshort 'IPC') against the applicants.

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that based on intimationregarding death of deceased Smt. Riddhi Soni given byrespondent No.2 on 10.3.2023 at 23:30 hrs, police registeredregarding death of deceased Smt. Riddhi Soni given byrespondent No.2 on 10.3.2023 at 23:30 hrs, police registered Merg under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (for short 'CrPC') and conducted enquiry. During thecourse of enquiry, it revealed that on 10.3.2023 at about 8-8:30 p.m. deceased committed suicide at her matrimonialhome by hanging herself from the roof of bathroom with thehelp of saree. Deceased was brought down from the loop byfamily members and taken her to the hospital where the doctordeclared her dead. Body of deceased was sent for post-mortem to the Medical College, Raipur where the doctorconducted post-mortem examination on the body of deceasedand as per report, the cause of death was asphyxia as a resultof ante-mortem throttling and duration of death was about 18hours from examination. Based on post-mortem report mergwas registered and after merg enquiry, FIR was registered on22.3.2023 against applicants and co-accused Tarun Soni forcommission of offence under Sections 302, 120B, 201, 34 ofIPC.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet againstaccused persons under Sections 302, 120B, 201, 34 of IPC isfiled before the competent Court. The Court below, byimpugned order dated 03.10.2023, came to conclusion thatthe materials available in charge sheets disclose a prima faciecase and raise strong suspicion about commission of offenceby accused persons and accordingly framed charges againstthem. Feeling aggrieved by which, applicants have preferredthis criminal revision. accused persons under Sections 302, 120B, 201, 34 of IPC isfiled before the competent Court. The Court below, byimpugned order dated 03.10.2023, came to conclusion thatthe materials available in charge sheets disclose a prima faciecase and raise strong suspicion about commission of offenceby accused persons and accordingly framed charges againstthem. Feeling aggrieved by which, applicants have preferredthis criminal revision.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for applicants submits that even if theallegations levelled in the charge sheet are taken as it is, theoffence under Section 302 of IPC would not be made out. It isfurther contended that from the material available in chargesheet, it is appearing that allegation against present applicantsis only of hatching conspiracy to cause disappearance ofevidence of murder with intention to screen accused TarunSoni from the legal punishment. Therefore, the charge underSection 302 of IPC framed against the applicants be quashedand they be discharged from the said charge. allegations levelled in the charge sheet are taken as it is, theoffence under Section 302 of IPC would not be made out. It isfurther contended that from the material available in chargesheet, it is appearing that allegation against present applicantsis only of hatching conspiracy to cause disappearance ofevidence of murder with intention to screen accused TarunSoni from the legal punishment. Therefore, the charge underSection 302 of IPC framed against the applicants be quashedand they be discharged from the said charge.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposingsubmissions of learned Senior Counsel for applicants, wouldsubmit that as per material available in charge sheet, it isappearing that after committing murder of deceased, theapplicants in connivance with accused Tarun Soni, tried toshow that deceased had committed suicide by hanging herselfand thereby attempted to give colour of suicide to her murder.They took body of deceased to hospital, intimated the doctorthat deceased had hanged herself and after bringing her downfrom loop, they have taken her for treatment. He alsocontended that in the final report, it is appearing that aftermerg inquiry, applicants and accused Tarun Soni were takeninto custody, their memorandum statements were recordedand it has come in the memorandum statement of accusedTarun that applicants have also tried to protect him byprojecting the case to be of suicide. In the post-mortem report,submissions of learned Senior Counsel for applicants, wouldsubmit that as per material available in charge sheet, it isappearing that after committing murder of deceased, theapplicants in connivance with accused Tarun Soni, tried toshow that deceased had committed suicide by hanging herselfand thereby attempted to give colour of suicide to her murder.They took body of deceased to hospital, intimated the doctorthat deceased had hanged herself and after bringing her downfrom loop, they have taken her for treatment. He alsocontended that in the final report, it is appearing that aftermerg inquiry, applicants and accused Tarun Soni were takeninto custody, their memorandum statements were recordedand it has come in the memorandum statement of accusedTarun that applicants have also tried to protect him byprojecting the case to be of suicide. In the post-mortem report, cause of death of deceased is clearly mentioned as asphyxiadue to ante-mortem throttling.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thedocuments annexed along with revision petition. documents annexed along with revision petition.

7. Pursuant to direction of this Court, learned State Counsel hasproduced case diary for perusal of this Court. A glance ofcase diary would show that during merg inquiry, statements ofaccused persons were also recorded wherein applicantsherein have stated that they found the door of bathroomlocked; they broke open the door of bathroom, found thedeceased hanging and they brought her down. Thestatements of applicants are contrary to post mortem report.produced case diary for perusal of this Court. A glance ofcase diary would show that during merg inquiry, statements ofaccused persons were also recorded wherein applicantsherein have stated that they found the door of bathroomlocked; they broke open the door of bathroom, found thedeceased hanging and they brought her down. Thestatements of applicants are contrary to post mortem report.

8. In case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, reported in(2012) 9 SCC 460, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down theprinciples to be borne in mind for proper exercise ofjurisdiction under Section 397 or 482 CrPC, as the case maybe, particularly in the context of quashing of charge. Theprinciples in Amit Kapoor's case (supra) were recentlyquoted with approval in case of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v.Amit Kumar Tiwari & another, reported in 2022 SCC OnlineSC1057. One of the principles on which revisional jurisdictioncan be exercised is that if the allegations are patently soabsurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person canever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredientsof a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court mayinterfere. Relevant principles culled out by Hon'ble Supreme(2012) 9 SCC 460, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down theprinciples to be borne in mind for proper exercise ofjurisdiction under Section 397 or 482 CrPC, as the case maybe, particularly in the context of quashing of charge. Theprinciples in Amit Kapoor's case (supra) were recentlyquoted with approval in case of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v.Amit Kumar Tiwari & another, reported in 2022 SCC OnlineSC1057. One of the principles on which revisional jurisdictioncan be exercised is that if the allegations are patently soabsurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person canever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredientsof a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court mayinterfere. Relevant principles culled out by Hon'ble Supreme “27.2. The Court should apply the test as towhether the uncontroverted allegations asmade from the record of the case and thedocuments submitted therewith prima facieestablish the offence or not. If the allegationsare so patently absurd and inherentlyimprobable that no prudent person can everreach such a conclusion and where the basicingredients of a criminal offence are notsatisfied then the Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not undulyinterfere. No meticulous examination of theevidence is needed for considering whether thecase would end in conviction or not at the stageof framing of charge or quashing of charge.

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

27.9. Another very significant caution that thecourts have to observe is that it cannot examinethe facts, evidence and materials on record todetermine whether there is sufficient material onthe basis of which the case would end in aconviction; the Court is concerned primarily withthe allegations taken as a whole whether theywill constitute an offence and, if so, is it anabuse of the process of court leading toinjustice.

27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above,where the Court finds that it would amount toabuse of process of the Code or that the interestof justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debitojustitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice foradministration of which alone, the courts exist.”

9. In case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT Delhi), reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, has observed inPara-25 as under:- “25.It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge,the court is required to evaluate the material anddocuments on record with a view to finding out ifthe facts emerging therefrom, taken at their facevalue, disclose the existence of all the ingredientsconstituting the alleged offence or offences. Forthis limited purpose, the court may sift theevidence as it cannot be expected even at theinitial stage to accept as gospel truth all that theprosecution states. At this stage, the court has toconsider the material only with a view to find out ifthere is ground for "presuming" that the accusedhas committed an offence and not for the purposeof arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely tolead to a conviction. (See: Niranjan Singh KaramSingh Punjabi & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja &Ors, (1990) 4 SCC 76).”

10. In case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa,reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659, the Supreme Court explainingthe meaning of the word 'presume' has observed thus:- “32. ...if on the basis of materials on record, a courtcould come to the conclusion that commission ofthe offence is a probable consequence, a case forframing of charge exists. To put it differently, if theCourt were to think that the accused might havecommitted the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required tobe that the accused has commuted the offence. Itis apparent that at the stage of framing of charge,probative value of the materials on record cannotbe gone into; the materials brought on record bythe prosecution has to be accepted as true at thatstage".”

11. In case of Supriya Jain vs. State of Haryana & another,reported in (2023) 7 SCC 711, relying on its earlier decision incase of Amit Kapoor (supra) has observed thus:-

“18.Applying the broad principles as enunciated bythis Court, we hold that it is not one of those rarecases where the uncontroverted allegationsappearing from the materials on recordnotwithstanding, it can successfully be contendedthat even no prima facie opinion can be formedpointing to commission of any offence by thepetitioner. It is trite that the conspiracy to commit anoffence is by itself distinct from the offence to dowhich the conspiracy is entered into and that such anoffence, if actually committed, would be the subject-matter of a separate charge. The allegations that thepetitioner was found counting the cash received bythe principal accused from the second respondent inthe presence of a listed witness and that sheconspired with her sister, the principal accused, tocheat and defraud the second respondent, persuadeus to record that involvement of the petitioner,howsoever limited, cannot be ruled out at this stageand, therefore, the trial ought to be permitted toproceed and she obliged to stand trial.

19. For the reasons aforesaid, we uphold theimpugned judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the petition under section 482 CrPC. Thetrial court may proceed with the trial uninfluenced byany observation made in this judgment and orderwhich is for the purpose of a decision on the appeal.”trial court may proceed with the trial uninfluenced byany observation made in this judgment and orderwhich is for the purpose of a decision on the appeal.”

12. Further, at the stage of charge, this Court in exercise ofrevisional jurisdiction is not required to go for mini trial as heldby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohan Lal vs. Stateof Rajasthan, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 584, in Para-7,which reads thus:-revisional jurisdiction is not required to go for mini trial as heldby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohan Lal vs. Stateof Rajasthan, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 584, in Para-7,which reads thus:- “7. We are of the view that the High Court could nothave conducted a mini trial at the stage of framingof charge, and that too in revision filed against theorder framing charges. We are of the view that it isimpossible to state at this stage that no case couldpossibly be made out for ultimate conviction ofRespondent No.2. This being the case, we setaside the judgment of the High Court and restorethat of the trial Court.”have conducted a mini trial at the stage of framingof charge, and that too in revision filed against theorder framing charges. We are of the view that it isimpossible to state at this stage that no case couldpossibly be made out for ultimate conviction ofRespondent No.2. This being the case, we setaside the judgment of the High Court and restorethat of the trial Court.”

13. It is not the case that accepting the case projected byapplicants, no case would be made out. The submission oflearned Senior Counsel for applicants is that there areallegations against applicants under Section 120B, 201, 34 ofIPC. Although, subsequent proceeding recorded by policeduring investigation is based on memorandum statement ofco-accused Tarun Soni, which in the opinion of the Courtwould be subject matter of trial. The charge under Section120B of IPC is already there. applicants, no case would be made out. The submission oflearned Senior Counsel for applicants is that there areallegations against applicants under Section 120B, 201, 34 ofIPC. Although, subsequent proceeding recorded by policeduring investigation is based on memorandum statement ofco-accused Tarun Soni, which in the opinion of the Courtwould be subject matter of trial. The charge under Section120B of IPC is already there.

14. In the given facts and circumstances of case, submissions oflearned counsel for respective parties, in particular submissionof learned Senior Counsel for applicants that in the chargesheet there is material to connect applicants only for offenceunder Sections 120B, 201, 34 of IPC, I do not find present tobe a fit case to interfere with the order framing charge. learned counsel for respective parties, in particular submissionof learned Senior Counsel for applicants that in the chargesheet there is material to connect applicants only for offenceunder Sections 120B, 201, 34 of IPC, I do not find present tobe a fit case to interfere with the order framing charge.

15. Consequently, the criminal revision is dismissed.

roshan-/

Sd/-(Parth Prateem Sahu)Judge