ORDER
L.C. Bhadoo, J.
1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC has been preferred by the accused/applicant against the order dated 11-11-2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 212/2002 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the charges under Sections 304B and 306 of the IPC have been framed against the accused/applicant.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The learned Counsel for the accused argued that as per the prosecution evidence, he is not disputing the charge framed against the accused/applicant under Section 304B, IPC however, on the basis of the evidence available on the record offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out, therefore, this part of the charge be quashed by allowing the revision.
4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Government Advocate supported the order of the learned Trial Court.
5. I have perused the statements of the witnesses. The statement of Hemant Kanaskar, brother of the deceased, has stated that his sister Ashiwini was married with the accused/applicant on 19th November, 1995 and out of this marriage Ashiwini got one son and he is aged about 4 years. The accused/applicant had suffered a loss in his business and he became financially weak so he was upset on account of that and he started harassing his sister and pressurizing her to bring money from us. His mother did not pay Rs. 20,000/-, but the accused took Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- in instalments. But six months before Ajay Shankar Rao has married with some other lady, when his sister enquired from the applicant, he started beating her. On 25-12-2001, he informed brother of the accused on telephone. Thereafter on 26-12-2001 they came to his residence and scolded the accused/applicant and brother and sister in law of the accused took his sister and thereafter on 16-1-2002 accused applicant brought his sister to Bhilai and thereafter accused started harassing and beating his sister, that his sister used to tell him and he threatened, if you will go to your parents, I will desert you, as and when his sister used to come to him, after consoling and advising her, he used to send her back. Thereafter they came to know that the accused/applicant married one Sona Chatterjee. On 25-1-2002, when he went to the residence of the accused/applicant, he noticed that his sister was upset she was not talking to him and at about 11:00 in the night the accused/applicant brought his sister. On enquiry, she disclosed that her husband has deceived her and accused asked her if you want to live then live and if you don’t want to live, don’t live, you go and die and on that she consumed a poison. His sister died in the hospital during treatment. The accused used to pressurize his sister to bring money, when his sister objected for keeping other lady and marrying that lady, the accused beat his sister, he behave cruelly and tortured her mentally and physically. She was fed up with this that is why she committed suicide by consuming poison.
6. The other witnesses, namely, Pranita Kanaskar, Rajeev, Narendra Ingle, Harendra Deshkar, as also Smt. Prabha Kanaskar have also supported the statement of Hemant Kanaskar on one or the other count.
7. A bare perusal of these statements reveals that Ashiwini committed suicide by consuming poison in her husband’s house within the 7 years of her marriage with the accused. The evidence available on the record goes to show that the accused forced the deceased Ashiwini by beating her, by asking her to bring money from her parents, by treating her with cruelty, by harassing her, by marrying another lady, therefore, abetted the deceased Ashiwini to commit suicide, as such the prima facie evidence is already on record. By framing charges under Sections 304B and 306, IPC against the accused/applicant the learned Trial Court has not committed any error or illegality, As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that for framing of the charge, the Trial Court has to look into the FIR and the evidence, if prima facie charges are made out, then the charges are to be framed and the Trial Court is not expected to appreciate and scrutinise the evidence at the stage of the framing of the charge. Similarly a judgment in the case of Munna Devi v. State or Rajasthan, reported in (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 631, the Apex Court held that :–
‘revisional powers cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. Recourse to such powers for quashing the charges can be taken only if there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or where no offence is being made out against the accused considering the entire facts stated in the FIR.’
8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the evidence available on the record, I am of the view that there is no force in this revision, the same is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. However, before parting with the order it is made clear that the Trial Court while passing the final judgment shall not be influenced or otherwise, by any of the observation made in this order.