ANIL SHARMA ALIAS ANIL HARRISON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of this revision at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the deceased Kusum was married with the petitioner No. 1 Anil Sharma. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law and the petitioner No. 3 is the sister-in-law of the deceased Kusum. The marriage had taken place on 15.2.1988. The incident took place on 18.4.1988 in which Kusum received 100% burns. She was taken to the R.M.L. Hospital where her dying declaration was recorded by the SDM in which she had categorically stated that she got burns while lighting the stove. Kusum died because of burnt injuries on 19.4.1988 in the hospital. On the same day Kusum's brother Yashwant Kumar (Public Witness 1) lodged the FIR at the police station, Punjabi Bagh. Investigation pursuant to the said FIR culminated into submission of a charge sheet under Sections 304-B/498-A/406, Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. On consideration of the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency and after hearing the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 304-B/498-A/406, IPC against the petitioners vide orders dated 22nd February, 1996. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) Assailing validity of the impugned order learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the materials collected by the Investigating Agency do not make out any case against the petitioners and learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed any illegality in framing the impugned charges against them. Learned Counsel has also invited my attention to the dying declaration of the deceased Kusum recorded by the SDM in support of the said contentions. In the said dying declaration, deceased Kusum stated that she caught fire while lighting the stove and her husband came to her rescue. The learned Additional Sessions Judge excluded the said dying declaration on the basis of the statments of Ms. Kanta Sharma and Smt. Saria. In her case diary statement, Ms. Kanta Sharma stated that she came to the spot immediately after the alleged occurrence and found the deceased lying in burnt condition on first floor and at that time Kusum had exclaimed "Yah Kya Kar Diya". According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge the aforesaid statement of the deceased indicates that someone had done something to her. Similarly, in her case diary statement, Smt. Saria stated that on 2.4.1988 i.e. a fortnight before the alleged incident the deceased had complained to her about the harassment and ill-treatment meted out to her for not bringing sufficient dowry. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge the statements of the aforesaid witnesses raise a strong suspicion against the petitioners for framing impugned charges against them. It is axiomatic that the standard of proof normally adhere to at the final stage is not to be applied at the stage of framing the charge where the scope of consideration is whether the materials collected by the Prosecuting Agency disclose a prima facie case against the accused. However, the test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and enunciation of any general rule or principle valid for all occasions is not practicable. It is well settled that at the stage of framing charge the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. If on the basis of materials on record a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, the Court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed with the trial.