CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision preferred by petitioner-Chandraprakash - father of deceased Anupama preferred under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 04.07.2016 passed by learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Sessions Case no.415/15, whereby charge under Sections 304-B & 498-A of IPC has been framed with additional charge in alternate under Section 306 of IPC declining the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner also to frame a charge under Section 302 of IPC.

(2.) Facts of the case reveal that respondent Satyendra Kumar - the son of respondent No.3 Shantidevi Chaudhary got married sometimes in year 2000. It was a love marriage. After the marriage, the deceased was a bank employee, was residing with the respondents. On 18.05.2015, at around 7.30 p.m., she died in suspicious circumstances in the house of the respondents. Death occurred within 7 years of her marriage. Matter was reported to the police. In postmortem, which was conducted by panel of three doctors, strangulation was opined as probable cause of death. Matter was again referred to panel of doctors, which vide report dated 25.06.2015, who opines that probable cause of death was strangulation as mentioned in the postmortem report. This panel also opined that the ligature mark is found on the neck of the deceased does not appear to have been caused by a piece of story said to have been recovered in the matter. Matter was further referred to the Director of the Medical Legal Institute, the panel on the basis of various reports. That available evidences are indicating of asphyxia was a result of hanging with a possibility of self suspension which cannot be ruled out unless proved otherwise by a reliable strong scientific and substantial evidence. Considering the material filed along with the charge-sheet, the learned Sessions Judge declined to frame a charge under Section 302 of IPC and framed charges under Section 304B , in alternate S.306 and 498-A of IPC .

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prima- facie there was a strong reliable material on record to indicate that prima- facie the death of Anupama occurred due to strangulation meaning thereby due to human involvement and it was not a case of hanging simplicitor, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have been framed a charge under Section 302 of IPC, therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the apex Court in Jasvinder Saini & Ors. vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi ), 2013 (2) G.L.H. 454 SC, Eshwarppa vs. State of Karnataka , AIR 2015 SC 3037 and Kailash & Ors. vs. State of U.P ., AIR 1979 SC 1711.