EKTA NATANI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments stated that he did not want to press this revision against the charge under Section 306 of the IPC. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner challenges only the legality and propriety of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC which has been framed in alternative against the petitioner vide impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously pleads that there was no prima facie evidence on record for framing the charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the petitioner. In spite of that the said charge has been framed without any basis. Besides, the prosecution has not filed charge sheet under Section 302 of the IPC against the petitioner. Apart from that, the doctor who conducted the postmortem has not opined on any cause of death of the deceased in the postmortem report and he preserved the visara of the deceased for FSL examination to find out the cause of death. No injury has been found on the body of the deceased. The counsel further submits that report from the FSL has not been produced before the trial Court so far, owing to which, there was no basis before the trial Court to frame the said charge. The counsel further submits that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.

(3.) Moreover, all the witnesses have deposed in their statements that the deceased committed suicide owing to having been harassed by the petitioner and co-accused Rohit, therefore, the charge framed by the learned trial court under Section 302 of the IPC be quashed.