DHAPUBAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in Sessions Trial No. 102/12 framing charges under Section 306 of the IPC in the alternative for offence under Sections 302 & 498A of the IPC against the present petitioners. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the deceased Sarita @ Nagina; wife of the petitioner No. 4, Sanjay caught fire and sustained grievous burn injuries and was taken to the hospital. However she succumbed to the injuries during the treatment and the police registered the merge and after recording of statements registered the offence under Section 306 of the IPC against the present applicants.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently urged the fact that prima facie there were no ingredients for framing charges for offence punishable under Section 306 or 302, 498A of the IPC; primarily because the statement of the deceased Sarita was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and she did not state anything against the present petitioners. In fact, she has exonerated them and the statements of the witnesses have been due to instigation and recorded after a lapse of 25 days. Counsel vehemently urged the fact that the entire prosecution case was mala fide because the father of the deceased lodged a written complaint before the SDOP, Bagli for registration of the offence, 25 days after the incident had occurred. And even if the allegations are considered there was just omnibus statements and prima facie there is no direct evidence collected by the prosecution regarding the murder of the deceased as alleged and offence u/S. 302 of the IPC can not be made out in any circumstance. Counsel prayed that the impugned order framing charges be set aside.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners also vehemently urged the fact that even if the documents on record are considered, the MLC by the Choithram Hospital and Research Centre clearly indicated that history as told by patient is that Sarita was cooking food and suddenly caught fire, she had poured kerosene on the wood when suddenly the fire flared up and the incident had occurred at 12:30 p.m. She was brought to the Choithram Hospital on 27.02.2011 at 5:00 p.m. itself and Dr. Sharad Dubey has certified that the patient was having 90% burns and in this light also Counsel stated that the dying declaration has been duly verified by Naib Tehsildar and after the doctor certified that the patient was fit to give the statement. The entire dying declaration was in accordance with the provisions of law and there was no need to doubt the present petitioners unnecessarily. Moreover Counsel submitted that all the petitioners had been roped on the basis of omnibus statements and did not deserve to undergo the rigors of the long trial when there was no evidence on record. The Apex Court has time and again deprecated the practice of roping of all the family members (relied on Preeti Gupta & another vs. State of Jharkhand & another, 2010 CrLJ 4303) . He however candidly admitted that anticipatory bail had been granted to all the petitioners under the circumstances.