S.S. Grewal, J.
1. Ranbir Mehta. husband, Som Parkash and Raj Rani Parentsinlaw. Jagjivan Ram, husband''s brother, Sneh Lata, husband''s sister of Saroj deceased and Dr. Satya Wati Loomba, in whose clinic the deceased remained on 3.3.1987 from 7 p. m. upto 2:00 a m. on 4.3.1987 and was subsequently referred to Civil Hospital, Ambala, were challaned under Sections 304A 304B, 315, 498A and 120 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of First Information Report No. 32 dated 12th August, 1987 registered at Police Station, Lalru, district Patiala. The Additional Sessions Judge, vide his impugned order dated 4th of February, 1989 discharged Dr. Satya Wati Loomba under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and framed charge against the rest of the accused under sections 498A, 120B, 315 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved against the impugned order Punjab State filed Criminal Revision No. 716 of 1989 whereas Vijay Kumar complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 342 of 1989. In both these petitions order discharging. Satya Wati Loomba under section 227 of the Code has been challenged whereas Criminal Misc. No. 3384M of 1989 under section 482 of the Code has been filed by Sneh Lata and Jagjivan Ram in respect of charges framed against them by the trial Court. As common questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions, it would be convenient to dispose of all these petitions by one judgment.
2. In brief facts relevant for the disposal of the aforesaid petitions are that marriage between Saroj deceased and Ranbir Mehta accused was solemnised on 18111984. According to the complainant marriage had been performed, decently; that after sometime the complainant heard that Saroj was not happy and was being pressurised by her inlaws to bring more dowry. At first the mother and the sister of Saroj took the rumours lightly. Later on, they realised that saroj was not happy and her life was likely to be, finished. Mother inlaw of Saroj used to taunt her and her relatives that they had not given anything even after the marriage. Inlaws of the deceased did not allow her to visit her parents nor she could talk freely to her patents and other relations. The deceased was in family way and the expected date of delivery was 16th of February, 1987. On 15.2.87 Ranbir Mehta accused attended the marriage of Vijay Kumar complainant. At that time also be quarrelled with his inlaws as they had not helped him financially to open a clinic at Ambala. According to the prosecution allegations the accused deliberately did not lake the deceased in time to any lady doctor for antenatal care before 3.3.1987. On that day, she was taken from the village first to the clinic of Dr Satya Wati Loomba at Ambala and was got admitted. Her condition deteriorated. Dr. Satya Wati Loomba was not in a position to handle the case so Saroj was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala where Dr. Pushpa Garg attended on her and remarked that it was a badly handled case. Saroj gave birth to a child at 2.30 A.M. on 4.3.1987 who died at about 3.30 a.m. on the same day whereas Saroj died at about 7 a.m. Information about the death of mother and child was not given to the police nor such information was sent to her parents. Nor the postmortem examination was carried out. Parents of Saroj deceased reached at about 11 a m. on 4.3.1987 but they were not allowed to go near the deceased. Vijay Kumar brother of Saroj deceased complained in writing to the Director General of Police on 11.3.1987 and levelled allegations that the death of Saroj deceased and her child were not natural. Initially the investigating agency was of The view that it was a case of natural death. Vijay Kumar made another application on 21.9.87 that inlaws of Saroj being doctors had intentionally delayed the delivery of child and caused her death as well as of her child. Thereafter case under sections 304A and 498A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused, Offences under sections 304B, 315 and 20B of the Indian Penal Code were also added. Civil Surgeon, Patiala also opined that delivery case of the deceased was not properly handled during antenatal period while the deceased was admitted in Women Hospital, Ambala Cantt. After completion of the investigation all the accused were challaned and committed to the Court of Session.
3. I have heard the learned canusel for the parties. and have carefully perused the record.
4. On behalf of the State as well as the complainant, it was vehemently argued that the delivery case of Smt. Saroj was not properly handled by Dr. Satya Wati Loomba when the deceased was brought to the private clinic of the said doctor on the evening of 3.3.1987 at about 7 p.m. It was further submitted that in connivance, with her other coaccused Dr. Satya Wati Lookba purposely did not render proper medical aid or help to Saroj and deliberately with held such medical aid at the instance of other coaccused and at a very late stage referred the case to Civil Hospital, Ambala. Reference was also made to the statement of Chander Mohan PW recorded by the police during the investigation on 4.1.1986. According to this witness on 3.3.1987 at about 10 a.m. when he went for check up of his wife to Dr Satya Wati Loomba, he found Ranbir Mehta and his father Som Parkash Mehta accused sitting and talking with Dr. Satya Wati Loomba. In his presence Som Parkash accused told Dr. Loomba that Saroj was to deliver a child and wanted Dr. Satya Wati Loomba to finish Saroj and her child by giving wrong medicine or by using some other method and Dr Satya Wati Loomba, actually agreed to said proposal. He came to know about the death of Saroj on the next day.
5. While dealing with the question of discharge under section 227 of the Code, the Apex Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, AIR 1979 S.C. 366. has laid down the following principles :
"(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out;
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally, depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a PostOffice or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
6. While explaining the scope of sections 227 and 228 of the Code, in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, 1978(1) SCR 257, the Apex. Court observed as under
"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 an 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 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 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."
7. In fact, section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that "the Judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused." The `ground'' in the context is not a ground for conviction but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the suilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The Court, therefore need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor it is necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that Court has to consider is whether the evidentrary material on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more need be enquired into, as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad etc v. Dilip Nathunal Chordia and another, 1989 CAR 61.
8. Since the material on the basis of allegations concerning complicity of Dr. Satya Wati Loomba in the crime made in this case is itself gravely suspicious, the learned trial Court was justified in sifting such material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima faces case against the said accused has been made out or not. The trial Court has referred to the highly belated and unnatural statement of Chander Mohan who did not disclose about the alleged conspiracy between Dr. Satya Wati Loomba and Ranbir Mehta and Som Parkash accused to finish Saroj and her child. This witness knew about the death of Saroj on the next morning but kept quiet till his statement was allegedly recorded on 4.1.1988 much after Vinod Kumar complainant submitted second application to the police. After the condition of Saroj deteriorated Dr. Satya Wati Loomba herself took Saroj to Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt and her admitted there at about 2.30 a.m. on 4.3.1987 whereas Saroj died at about 7.05 a.m on the same day according to the allegations in the complaint itself. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case referred to above, it was not essential for the trial Court to frame charge against Dr. Satya Wati Loomba accused merely on the basis of suspicion. Thus the order of discharge of Dr. Satya Wati Loomba cannot be said to be illegal or grossly perverse and no interference is called for.
9. As far as the question of framing of charge against Sneh Lata and Jagjivan Ram accused is concerned, there is sufficient material on the record to make out a prima facie case on the basis of which charge has rightly been framed against the said accused by the trial Court. According to the statements of some, of the witnesses including Banwari Lal recorded by the Investigating Agency, apart from motherinlaw, husband and fatherinlaw of the deceased, both Sneh Lata and Jagjivan Rain accused were also present when the motherinlaw of Saroj taunted her and her relations for bringing inadequate dowry or for not giving them gifts after marriage and that the said accused too acted with cruelty towards the deceased and wanted to finish her. The impugned order concerning framing of charge against Sneh Lata and Jagjivan Ram accused cannot be said to be illegal or perverse and is not liable to be set aside.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in either of the petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20121991, which is directed to dispose of this case expeditiously. Copy of this order be also sent to the trial Court.
