INDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS agreed by the counsel on both sides, this petition is heard finally. The petitioner is charge sheeted for the offence punishable u/s 376 and 306 IPC by the impugned order dated 12th Sept. 97 of 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No: 434/97. The petition on feels aggrieved and the learned counsel for petitioner argued that in fact there is no material whatsoever to raise even a distant inference that the accused committed rape on the victim or that the accused sided or abetted her suicide either by his deliberate act or conduct.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 12.4.1997, the deceased Sillobai alias Suvidha, aged about 14 years was in her parents house. One witness had seen the accused emerging from her room. Thereafter, after a few hours when the parents returned from the field, they noticed the door bolted from inside and on looking through the window they found the body of the girl hanging with a rpe. She was dead. Apparently she had committed suicide. The post mortem examination showed that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse. Her clothes were sent to Laboratory but no traces of any semen was found on them. The slides prepared from her pubic hair also did not show the presence of any semen. The body did not bear any injury whatsoever except the ligature mark, because asphyxia is the cause of death resulting from hanging by neck. Thus the only evidence against this accused was based on two factors; (1) that the girl was accustomed to sexual intercourse (2) that this accused was seen by one witness emerging from the room of the deceased. But, thereafter, the room was found bolted from inside, which means that when the deceased was inside the room, she bolted the door, and was alive at that moment. Only that deceased's body was found in the room. So there was nobody else in the room except the deceased when the door was bolted from inside the room. The prosecution has examined only 8 witnesses u/s 161, CrPC. One of whom says that she saw the accused emerging from the room where the body was seen hanging later on after few hours. The other witnesses merely say that they noticed the girl hanging with a rpe inside the room, that the door was found bolted from inside the room. The doors had been broken open to take out the body. There is medical evidence and there is nothing else. It appears that samples of the semen of the accused were obtained by police. But, since no semen was found on any cloths or part of the body of the deceased, the samples remain of no use. The photographs of the room which was taken by the I.O. has been produced on record. It shows that there was a stool below her dangling feet. It suggests that she had used the stool for hanging herself to death.

(3.) SECTION 228 CrPC provides of framing of charge by Sessions Court. If the Court is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed offence triable by him. The relevant words are grounds for presuming. S.227 of CrPC provides for discharge of an accused by Sessions Court, if the judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. So the question is whether there is 'ground for proceeding against this accused' or there is 'ground for presuming his involvement in the suicide'. So far as the charge of rapes concerned, there does not appear any circumstantial evidence. The mere fact that the accused was seen emerging from the room where ultimately the deceased was found hanging does not mean that the accused had sexual intercourse with her that day. The medical or laboratory evidence shows absence of it. The fact that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse also does not show that the accused had such a relationship with her. There is no other evidence whatsoever indicating it.