KUSUM LATA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 10. 5. 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against petitioner No. 1, Smt. Kusumlata, for offences under Sections 302/34, 328/34, 324/34 and 342 IPC and in the alternative, for offence under Section 306 IPC. THE learned Judge has also framed charges against petitioner No. 2 Kumari Sanju for offences under Sections 302, 328, 324/34, 342 IPC and in the alternative under Section 306 IPC.

(2.) IN brief the facts of the case are that on 16. 10. 1996, the complainant, Deen Dayal, submitted a written report at Police Station Shivaji Park, Alwar, wherein he alleged that on that day, around 10 O'clock in the morning his son Sanjay had gone to his uncle's house situated at Nehru Nagar at Alwar. Dispute had been going between Sanjay and One Ranveer Choudhary of Nehru Nagar over the love affair that had developed between Sanjay and Ranveer Choudhary's daughter Kumari Sanju. While Sanjay was at his uncle's place, Ranveer's son came to the house of Sanjay's uncle and told Sanjay that he is being called at the house of Ranveer Choudhary. Sanjay went to the house of Ranveer Choudhary. But, soon thereafter shrieks of Sanjay were heard from inside the house of Ranveer Choudhary. The neighbours had collected outside the house when they heard the shrieks. Little later, Sanjay was thrown out of Ranveer Choudhary's house. The neighbours noticed that froth was coming out of Sanjay's mouth and his hands were bleeding. He was also shouting that family members of Ranveer Choudhary had poisoned him. Therefore, the people immediately rushed him to the Government Hospital at Alwar. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No. 180/96 was registered for offences under Sections 323, 342 and 328 IPC. Immediately, the Police went to the Government Hospital and recorded Sanjay's statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure (`cr. P. C. ', for short ). Unfortunately, at 10. 30 P. M. Sanjay expired. With his death the Police also added offence under Section 302 IPC. Not only the Medical Jurist conducted the post- mortem, but he also sent Sanjay's Viscera for chemical examination. According to the Forensic Science Laboratory (`fsl', for short) Report dated 28. 4. 1997, Viscera did not show presence of any poison. Since the Medical Jurist had reserved his opinion about the Sanjay's cause of death, he again asked the FSL to re- examine the viscera. But, even according to the second report dated 25. 7. 1997, the result was in the negative. After receiving both the reports, according to the Medical Jurist, the cause of death was shock due to cardio-respiratory arrest. After the investigation was completed, the Police filed the charge sheet against both the petitioners. After hearing the Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, vide order dated 10. 5. 2000, the learned Judge framed the charges as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. N. A. Naqvi, the learned counsel for the complainant, has strenuously argued that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is extremely narrow. The Court would not be justified in nipping the trial in the bud. Since the prosecution has made a strong case against the petitioners, the trial should be permitted to complete its course. In order to buttress his case, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi & Ors. (AIR 2001 SC 40 ). Secondly, Sanjay had gone to the house of the petitioners where both the petitioners administered poisonous capsules to him. When he came out of the house, his mouth was full of froth and he told the people that he had been poisoned. Moreover, eventually he died. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 302 IPC are abundantly present. Thirdly, the learned Judge has framed the charges alternatively on the one hand 302, 302/34 IPC and on the other hand 306 IPC. Hence, the trial Court should be left free to appreciate the evidence produced during the trial and to decide the guilt or innocence of the petitioners.