RAMAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the applicant Ramai and Smt. Sheela with a prayer to quash the charge dated 31.6.2010 framed by the learned Sessions Judge Sant Kabir Nagar under Section 306 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and separate charge dated 21.5.2010 framed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar under Section 304 I.P.C. The fact in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by O.P. No. 2 Smt. Prabhawati Devi in case crime No. 39 of 2010 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Bakhira district Sant Kabir Nagar alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Sangeeta was solemnized with Raju, after marriage the applicants demanded dowry for which the deceased was subjected to cruelty, due to their behaviour the husband of the deceased become disappointed and taken away the deceased to Kota, thereafter the deceased and her husband came to village of the applicants from Kota, thereafter the husband of the deceased namely Raju left his village, thereafter on 5.1.2010 both the applicants poured kerosene oil and set the deceased on fire, O.P. No. 2 received the information then she and her relativeness brought the deceased to Medical College Gorakhpur where she succumbed to her injuries, on 6.1.2010 her statement was also recorded by the magistrate in which she has stated that kerosene oil was poured by the applicant, thereafter she was set on fire. According to the medical examination report the deceased sustained superficial to deep burn injuries, the cause of death was due to septicaemia due to the result of ante mortem burn injuries. During investigation the statement of the first informant was recorded she supported the F.I.R. version and stated that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized about six years prior to the alleged incident. The dying declaration of the deceased was also made part of the investigation by the I.O. it was recorded on 6.1.2010 from 4.10 p.m. to 4.50 p.m. by the Naib Tehsildar in which was stated that she was married with the Raju about 10 years back and she was set on fire by the applicants after recording the statement of some other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet dated 27.3.2010 under Section 306 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and the charge has also been framed under Section 304 I.P.C. and both the charge has also been submitted under Section 304 I.P.C. I.P.C. on both the charges the learned sessions Judge has taken cognizance on 14.4.2010, thereafter the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Court Sant Kabir Nagar has framed charge on separate sheet under Section 306 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act and Section 304 of the I.P.C. on 31.5.2010.

(2.) It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the applicants that that the learned trial Court has committed error in framing the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. as well as Section 304 I.P.C. because both the offence are distinct in nature. The charge under Section 306 I.P.C. reflects that the deceased has committed suicide, but the charge under Section 304 I.P.C. clearly reflects that the deceased has been killed. Both the charges are self contradictory, both the charges may not be framed together because both are of different in nature. In support of his submission the case of Prasoon Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 4 ACC 681 has been cited.

(3.) In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in framing of the charges, one of the charge has been framed on the basis of the material collected by the I.O. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and submission made by the Learned Counsel for the applicant and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the learned trial Court has framed the charge-sheet under Section 306 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the D.P. Act, second the charge under Section 304 I.P.C. has already been framed on the same day, both the offence are distinct in nature, one of the charge is with regard to the suicide and second charge is with regard to homicide. According to the provisions of Section 221 Cr.P.C. such charges which are purely district in nature, may not be framed together. The learned trial Court has committed error in framing such charges, therefore, the charges framed by the trial Court on 31.5.2010 under Section 306 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act and the charge under Section 304 I.P.C. are hereby quashed. The learned Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar is directed to frame fresh charge expeditiously in accordance with law.