KAMALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A young lady doctor whose husband is also a doctor at Jaypore in the district of Koraput, the Petitioner stands charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with having committed the murders of her two children, a daughter aged three years and a son aged four months on June 30, 1980, at about 9 p.m. by throwing the two children into the well in the backyard. Repelling the contention raised on behalf of the defence that the materials were insufficient to presume that the Petitioner had committed the offence, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against her. The charge has been framed according to the provision contained in Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the 'Code'). The Petitioner assails the order framing charge in this revision. Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has submitted that the materials placed before the court by investigating agency would not give rise to a strong suspicion and in the absence of any proof of motive for the commission of murders of her own children and owing to complete paucity of materials against her, the Petitioner could not be charged with the offence of murder. Mr. Patra, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has supported the impugned order as well -founded on facts and according to him, it is not a fit case where the Petitioner should have been discharged.

(2.) IN the case of Khirod alias Khirodra Debata v. State of Orissa, 1982 ELR 583 :, 1983 (1) Crimes 357, after referring to and relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court, and other High Courts in a number of reported cases including Mohanlal Maganlal Thakur v. State of Gujrat : 1968 S.C.D. 699 : A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 733. Amar Nath v. State of Haryana : A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2185, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra : A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 47, V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I., A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1962, P. Chiranjivi v. Principal, M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur : 47 (1979) C.L.T. 126, Mohanlal Devdanbhm Chokshi v. J.S. Wogh : 1981 Cri. L.J. 454, Jhaveri v. Shella Dadlani : 1981 Cri. L.J. 958 and Dattatraya Narayan Samant v. State of Maharashtra : 1982 Cri. L.J. 1025, this Court held that an order framing a charge under the Code is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code and therefore, a criminal revision lies against such an order. The present revision against the order framing a charge against the Petitioner is, therefore competent and maintainable.

(3.) THE conditions for the framing of a charge under Clause (b) of Section 228(1) of the Code are: (1) presumption of the commission of an offence on the materials placed before the court i.e. the existence of a prima facie case and (2) the offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Session. The expression 'ground' for presuming that the accused has committed an offence would mean basis, foundation or valid reason. In Khirod alias Khirodra Debata v. State of Orissa, 1982 ELR 583 :, 1983 (1) Crimes 357 (supra) this Court has observed: