DHARAMBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision that has been filed against the order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') for amendment in the charges, by way of framing the charge under Section 305 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') instead of 306 of IPC and for further framing the charge under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 6, 8, 12 of the POCSO Act read with Section 120-B of IPC against the accused persons, has been dismissed.

(2.) In short, the facts of the case are that FIR No.452 dated 05.09.2015 came to be registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Sadar, Sonipat against respondents No.2 and 3 herein on the complaint of petitioner-complainant that on 05.09.2015 at around 05.00 his daughter Deepika committed suicide due to threatening given by Hanni and his mother Suman (respondents No.2 and 3 herein). It was also alleged that when his daughter went to South Point School tour to Delhi, accused Hanni also reached there and did obscene act with his daughter. When his daughter Deepika returned back, she disclosed this incident to her mother, on which they narrated this matter to Hanni's family, but instead of rebuking her son, Hanni's mother insulted Deepika. Hanni's mother also went to South Point School and insulted his daughter Deepika. Deepika was very upset with the behaviour of Hanni and his mother Suman, compelling here to the extreme step of committing suicide..

(3.) During the course of investigation, a suicide note was recovered from the lower/trouser worn by the deceased at the time of her death, which was sent to FSL for verification of handwriting of the deceased and as per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, the handwriting on the suicide note is of the deceased. After completing the investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed in the court against respondents No.2 and 3 under Sections 306/34 of IPC and thereafter, the trial court framed the charges under Sections 306/34 of IPC by an order dated 11.12.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner-complainant moved an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for amendment of charge on the ground that since the deceased in the instant case was less than 18 years of age, she was a child, and therefore, charge under Section 305 of IPC is required to be framed instead of Section 306 of IPC, but the said application came to be dismissed on 27.01.2016. Thereafter, a supplementary challan was filed by the police under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C containing documents, birth certificate of Deepika (deceased) and statement of her mother Ishwanti. After that, the petitioner-complainant filed another application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. for amendment in the charges, by way of framing the charge under Section 305 of IPC instead of 306 of IPC and for further framing the charge under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 6, 8, 12 of the POCSO Act read with Section 120-B of IPC against the accused persons, which application came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 105.2016.