SIDDHANT AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the framing of charge under Section 302 IPC in the alternative for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge seem to have been framed on the basis of the observations of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Rajbir Vs.State of Haryana, 2010 15 SCC 116 wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court had issued directions to all the trial Courts in India to ordinarily add Section 302 IPC to the charge of Section 304-B IPC, so that death sentence could be imposed in such heinous and barbaric crimes against women. A copy of the said order was sent to all the Registrar (J)/Registrar of all High Courts for implementation.

(3.) Subsequently, Hon'ble the Apex Court in Jasvinder Saini and others Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2013 7 SCC 256, observed that direction issued in Rajbir Vs.State of Haryana, 2010 15 SCC 116 was not mean to be followed mechanically and without due regard to nature of the evidence available in the case. It was clarified that Hon'ble the Apex Court in Rajbir Vs.State of Haryana, 2010 15 SCC 116 meant to say that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Section 302 IPC can also be framed if the evidence otherwise permits. No other meaning can be deduced from the order of the Supreme Court. The observations of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Jasvinder Saini and others Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2013 7 SCC 256, reads as follows: -