PRAHLAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court (Women Atrocities and Dowry Prohibition Cases) Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges against the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 302/120-B and 201 IPC, the accused-petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 22.05.2009, a FIR, FIR No.117/2009 was lodged by one Ravinder Kumar, SHO, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. According to the said FIR, on 21.05.2009, one Dr. Krishan Kumar Mangal had lodged a report about his brother, Mukesh Mangal, who was missing. Subsequently, the body of Mukesh Mangal was discovered in a flat located at Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. On the basis of the said report, the aforesaid FIR was registered for offences under Sections 302/120-B and 201 IPC. During the course of investigation, one Bajrang Lal was apprehended and was interrogated by the Police. During his interrogation, he revealed that he is the petitioner's servant and servant of his son, Anoop. According to Bajrang Lal, Anoop and Vandna had business rivalry with Mukesh Mangal. Therefore, Anoop, Vandna and Bajrang Lal had conspired to murder Mukesh Mangal. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, Mukeksh Mangal was killed. He further revealed that after the murder, when he called up the petitioner, the petitioner told him to get rid of the dead body. However, the dead body was not sifted out of the flat where the murder had taken place. Besides this interrogation, the Police also discovered that Banjrang Lal had made an extra-judicial confession before one Balchand. Even to Balchand, Bajrang Lal had said that the petitioner had instructed him to get rid of the dead body. On the basis of interrogation and on the basis of the extra-judicial confession, the Police filed the challan against the petitioner for offences under Sections 302/120-B and 201 IPC. Vide order dated 29.10.2009, the learned trial court has framed the charges for the said offences against the petitioner, as mentioned above. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Ravi Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that it is a settled principle of law that at the time of framing of the charges, the trial court should not act as a mute witness, or as a mouth-piece of the prosecution. In fact, the trial court is required to assess the evidence to the limited extent of seeing if a strong suspicion exists against the alleged accused or not. However, in the present case, the learned trial court has not sifted through the evidence to examine the extent of suspicion against the present petitioner. Therefore, the trial court has failed to discharge a duty or to invoke a jurisdiction which is clearly vested in it. Secondly, even if the case of the prosecution were taken to be true, even then there is no evidence against the petitioner for offences under Section 302/120-B IPC. Only three pieces of evidence exist against the petitioner : firstly, the statement of Bajrang Lal given during the interrogation; Secondly, the extra-judicial confession made by Bajrang Lal to Balchand; thirdly, the call details which clearly show that the petitioner had spoken to his son, Anoop, and to Bajrang Lal, his servant. However, none of these evidence can create a strong suspicion against the petitioner for offences under Section 302/120-B IPC. For, the interrogation notes of Bajrang Lal cannot be read against the petitioner. Secondly, the extra judicial confession is limited to the point that the petitioner instructed Bajrang Lal to get rid of the body. Thirdly, it is not unusual for a person to speak to his son or to his servant. Therefore, call details discovered by the Police do not unerringly point towards the guilt of the petitioner. Thus, the learned Judge is not justified in framing the charges for offences under Sections 302/120-B and 201 IPC. Lastly, since the body was lying at the scene of the crime, the offence under Section 201 IPC is not made out. For, there is no evidence to show that the body was removed and the evidence of offence was destroyed. Therefore, no offence under Section 201 IPC is made out against the petitioner.