SUNAINA BAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/complainant, has filed this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhindori in S.T.No.17/10 whereby after evaluation of the papers of the charge sheet, on framing the charges against the respondent No.2 to 7 for the offence of section 498-A/34 of IPC, inspite availability of the prima facie ingredient for framing the charge of the offence of section 318 of the IPC, the same was not framed against the respondents No.2 to 7.

(2.) The facts necessary to adjudicate this revision in short are that on receiving a report of the applicant/complainant Smt Sunaina Bai in writing at Police Station Dhindori, a crime No.192/09 was registered against respondent No.2 to 7 on dated 17.6.09 for the offence under section 498 and 34 of the IPC and under section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the course of the investigation, on establishing the prima facie circumstance with respect of the offence of section 376 and 318 of the IPC, the same were also inserted in the matter. On completion of the investigation, the abovementioned respondents were charge sheeted for the offence of section 498-A read with section 34 ,376 of the IPC and section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, on evaluation of the papers of the chargesheet, the charge of section 376 and 498-A of the IPC was framed against respondent No.2 Parath Singh while the charge of section 498-A of the IPC was framed against respondents 3 to 7. Such respondents abjured the guilt and thereafter the respondent No.2 Parath Singh came to this court with the Cr.R.No.865/10 which was allowed in part vide dated 17.8.2010 and pursuant to that the respondent No.2 has been discharged from the offence of section 376 of the IPC while the remaining charge against him was affirmed. It is noted that the applicant was not impleaded as party in such revision. Subsequent to disposal of the aforesaid criminal revision, the present applicant also came to this court with this revision with a prayer to frame the charge of section 318 of the IPC in additional to the charge of section 498-A of the IPC against respondents No.2 to 7.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned appearing counsel of respondents No.2 to 7 said that in the lack of any medical evidence, mere on the basis of the averments of the FIR and interrogatory statement of the applicant or on the basis of any other such statement, the charge of section 318 of the IPC could not be framed against any of the respondents. In alternate, he said that, in any case, if the court comes to the conclusion that the ingredient of section 318 of the IPC are made out in the matter then even on taking into consideration the face value of the FIR and the interrogatory statements of the above mentioned witnesses as accepted in its entirety, the ingredient of such offence for framing such charge is made out only against the respondent No.2 and not against the other respondents. He also referred the concerning part of the FIR and the interrogatory statement of the complainant in this regard and prayed to dispose of this revision accordingly.