STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 27-8-96 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Case No. 149/96, discharging the accused persons of the offence under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts stated in brief are that the deceased Vandana was married to respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh s/o Shri Indra Bahadur Singh, in 1994 June and on 16th February, 1996 she committed suicide by hanging herself through roof. The matter was reported to the police and after investigation, police filed a challan on the basis of which Criminal Case No. 149/96 was started in the Sessions Court which was ultimately allocated to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, for trial. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, framed charge by his order dated 27-8-96 charging accused Smt. Savitri Debi and accused Virendra Pal Singh of offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and discharged the present respondent-accused of the offence under those Sections. It is this part of discharging the respondent-accused persons which is impugned in this order by the State Government on the grounds mentioned in the revision petition.

(3.) It was urged by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a settled law by the Supreme Court of India in more than one decisions that when strong suspicion is created in the mind of the Judge by the investigation papers, a prima facie case of framing charge is made out and when on the basis of such evidence, charge is framed, ordinarily a superior Court will not interfere with the framing of charge. It is also laid down by the Supreme Court of India that where no such prima facie case is made out, there is no evidence on record, which if accepted or which if unrebutted, would result in conviction of the accused.