G. A. Sanap, J
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
3. In this revision application, challenge is to the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, whereby the
application (Exh.29) made by the applicant/ accused no.2 for discharge in Sessions Case No. 51/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-
A, 306, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, came to be rejected.
4. The facts relevant for decision of the revision application can be summarized as follows :
Deceased Pradnya was married with Amol (accused No.1), son of the applicant/accused no.2. Their marriage took place on 24.12.2015. Deceased
Pradnya committed suicide on 26.01.2016. Before marriage, the deceased and Amol were having love affair. Love affair culminated into marriage
with the consent of the family members of Amol and the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that in the marriage, father of the deceased paid
Rs.1,50,000/- as a dowry. After marriage, the husband/accused no.1 and the mother-in-law (accused no.2) made demand of Rs.40,000/- to the
deceased as a dowry to meet household expenses. The deceased was subjected to mental and physical cruelty on account of non-fulfilment of said
demand. Therefore, she committed suicide by taking jump on railway track in front of a running train. Father of the deceased reported the matter to
the police. Police carried out the investigation. During investigation, apart from recording the statements of the witnesses in the know of the facts, a
written note (chit) was found. The said written note has been placed on record as a suicide note. The investigation revealed complicity of accused
nos.1 and 2 in commission of the crime, which ultimately led to filing of the charge-sheet against accused nos.1 and 2.
5. The application made by the applicant/accused no.2 for discharge was rejected on 06.11.2019. Thereafter applicant/accused no.2 approached this
Court by filing revision. This Court (Coram : Avinash G. Gharote, J.) vide order dated 14.02.2022 set aside the said order and remanded the matter
back to the trial Court for granting an opportunity to the parties of hearing and to pass a reasoned order. The application for discharge was heard by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the order impugned in this revision came to be passed.
6. The sum and substance of the application made by accused no.2 is that there is no iota of evidence to establish her complicity in commission of the
crime and as such, to frame the charge against her. The available material relied upon by the prosecution owe-fully falls short to satisfy the basic
requirements of law to frame the charge against accused no.2. Accused no.2 is falsely implicated on the basis of the report lodged by the father of the
deceased.
7. The application was opposed by the State. It is the case of the prosecution that there is ample material in the form of written chit, WhatsApp
messages between the deceased and the witnesses and the statements of the witnesses in know of the relevant facts to establish direct involvement
of accused no.2.
8. I have heard Mr. Akshay A. Naik, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. S. A. Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Perused the record and proceedings.
9. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there is no iota of evidence to establish complicity of the accused no.2 in the commission of
crime. The facts stated in the first information report as well as in the statements of the witnesses are vague and the allegations are omnibus. No
specific role has been attributed by any of the witnesses to accused no.2. Learned advocate further submitted that on the basis of the written chit as
well as WhatsApp messages and the statements of the witnesses, the basic ingredients of the offences allegedly committed by the accused no.2 have
not been made out. Learned advocate submitted that no specific act has been attributed to the accused no.2 in the first information report, in the
written chit left by the deceased, in WhatsApp messages and in the statements of the witnesses. Learned Advocate, therefore, submitted that the
mens rea required to be prima facie established is absent in this case. In order to seek support to these submissions, learned advocate has placed
reliance on the decisions in the cases of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others .vs. State of Bihar and others, reported at AIR 2022 SC 820 ; in
M. Srinivasa Reddy .vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported at 2021 All M.R. (Cri.) 3365 ; in Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi .vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 394 ; and in Appasaheb and another .vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at (2007) 9 SCC 721.
10. In Kahkashan Kausar’s case (supra), which mainly deals with quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Code, it is held that in absence of clear allegations against the in-laws, continuation of prosecution would constitute an abuse of process of law. It is
held that in order to maintain and continue the prosecution, there must be specific and distinct allegations against the accused persons. The prosecution
cannot be continued on vague, general and omnibus allegations.
11. In M.Srinivasa Reddy’s case (supra), to which I was a party, it is held that in absence of specific allegation and evidence, the prosecution
cannot be allowed to continue. In this case, the evidence was in the form of suicide note left by the deceased. On consideration of the suicide note, it
was found that no specific role was attributed to applicant-Shrinivasa Reddy. The only allegation found in the suicide note was that co-accused of
Shrinivasa Reddy was a superior officer of the co-accused and when the deceased made a complaint of ill-treatment and torture to her at the hands of
co-accused, Mr. Reddy did not take any action against him. Considering the law laid down in various decisions, it was held that continuation of the
prosecution in absence of cogent and concrete evidence to make out the basic requirements of Section 107 of the IPC, would be an abuse of process
of law.
12. In Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi’s case (supra), the scope and ambit of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. has been considered. It is
held that if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from
grave suspicion, he would be fully within his right to discharge the accused. It is further held that at the stage of decision on discharge application, the
Judge is not required to see whether the trial will end in conviction or not on the basis of the available evidence.
13. In Appasaheb’s case (supra), it is held that correlation between the giving and taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the
parties is essential. Demand of dowry on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses cannot be termed as a
demand for dowry.
14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there was no delay in lodging the first information report. He further pointed out
that in the FIR as well as in the statements of the witnesses, in the WhatsApp messages and the written chit, specific role has been attributed to
accused nos.1 and 2. On the basis of the evidence compiled in the charge-sheet, learned APP submitted that the role attributed to accused nos.1 and 2
is identical and therefore, it cannot be said that the case of accused no.2 is on better footing than the case of accused no.1. Learned APP submitted
that the evidence compiled in the charge-sheet is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. for framing charge.
Learned APP submitted that if the exercise of appreciation of the evidence is undertaken as submitted by the learned advocate for the
applicant/accused no.2, then it would not be short of holding a mini trial at this stage. Learned APP submitted that the legal position settled in number
of decisions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is against the case of the applicant/accused no.2. He relied upon a decision in the case of Tarun Jit
Tejpal .vs. State of Goa and another, reported at (2020) 17 SCC 556. It is pointed out that in this case , the decisions in the case of Niranjan Singh
Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate .vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and others [(1990) 4 SCC 76] and in the case of Sajjan Kumar .vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation [(2010) 9 SCC 368] have been considered. It is held in these decisions that appreciation of evidence at the time of framing of charge
under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. or while considering discharge application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is not permissible. The Court is not
permitted to analyse all the material touching the pros and cons, reliability or acceptability of the evidence.
15. In Tarun Jit Tejpal’s case (supra), it is held that at the time of consideration of the application for discharge, the Court cannot act as a mouth
piece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to
pass an order of discharge. It is held that at the stage of consideration of application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with an assumption that
the materials brought on record by prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts
emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the Court is not
expected to go deep into the matter and hold that materials would not warrant a conviction. It is held that what needs to be considered is whether
there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting accused has been made out. It is further
held that the law does not permit a mini trial at the stage of deciding the discharge application or at the time of framing of charge.
16. In my opinion, in order to appreciate the submission and the applicability of the law laid down in the judicial pronouncements above, it would be
necessary to go through the record and proceedings. Charge-sheet has been filed after completion of the investigation. A complete copy of the
charge-sheet is placed on record in this revision. The deceased committed suicide on 26.01.2016. Father got the information in the evening at 7.00 pm.
He lodged report on 27.01.2016 at 19.31 hours. In the report, he has categorically stated about the amount paid before marriage towards dowry to the
accused. He has specifically stated the demand of Rs.40,000/- after marriage as a dowry to meet household expenses. The written chit left by the
deceased is placed on record. The said chit prima facie reveals that the deceased was forced to do abortion. In the chit, it has been stated that the
mother-in-law/ accused no.2 was instrumental or pressing very hard for abortion. She even suggested the names of the abortion pills to the deceased.
The deceased has stated her anguish in the written chit due to torture and ill-treatment meted out to her on this count by the husband and mother-in-
law. It is true that in the chit, there is no specific mention of demand of dowry.
17. In the written chit, the deceased has stated that she had WhatsApp communication with her brother-in-law Mr. Khobragade. The transcript of the
WhatsApp messages produced on record clearly indicates that torture meted out to her on this count was communicated by her to her brother-in-law
Mr. Khobragade. In the WhatsApp messages, the role attributed to the husband and mother-in-law has been specifically spelt out. The father has not
stated anything about this in the FIR. However, when his statement was recorded during the course of investigation, he has narrated about the same
as well. In the FIR, there is a specific allegation with regard to demand of Rs.40,000/- as a dowry to meet the household expenses. In the FIR, he has
categorically stated the amount paid to the accused for purchasing clothes before the marriage. His statement was recorded on 28.01.2016. He has
categorically stated that his daughter had informed him on phone about the demand of dowry, ill-treatment and torture to her on that count. He has
stated that he has given understanding to the daughter and pacified her. In his statement, he has further stated about the torture meted out to the
deceased for doing abortion. In his statement, he has further stated that in her purse, a written chit and a receipt of payment for sex determination was
found. It is to be noted that the remaining witnesses have consistently attributed specific role on both the counts to accused nos.1 and 2. One Ganesh
Khobragade, who was in contact with the deceased on phone, has specifically stated about the demand of Rs.40,000/- and the pressure applied on the
deceased to abort the child and ill-treatment on both the counts.
18. In my view, on the basis of the material placed on record, it is very difficult to distinguish the role attributed to the accused nos.1 and 2. The role
attributed to them is identical. The material on record, if considered at its face value, would indicate that it satisfies the basic requirements of law to
frame the charge. In my view,, if this material is appreciated and a finding is recorded as to the credibility or reliability of the same, it would amount to
a premature adjudication of the dispute. The law does not permit holding of a mini trial, as held in the decision in Tarun Jit Tejpal’s case (supra). In
my view, therefore, the material on record is prima facie sufficient to frame the charge against the accused. The submissions of the learned advocate
for the applicant, therefore, cannot be accepted. The law laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant would,
therefore, be of no help to the case of the applicant at this stage. If the submissions are to be accepted, then this Court would be required to consider
the pros and cons of the evidence on merits. It is to be seen that the role attributed to the accused persons cannot be said to be vague and in the form
of omnibus allegations. In my view, therefore, the learned Judge was right in rejecting the application (Exh.29). The learned Judge has considered the
applicable law and came to the conclusion that the case in question was not a fit case to allow the application for discharge. The learned Judge has
recorded the reasons for rejecting the application. The reasons are according to law. In my view, therefore, no interference is warranted in the well
reasoned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. The revision application, therefore, fails. Hence, the order :
ORDER
The revision application stands dismissed.
