Dhruv Taunk vs State & Anr on 26 October, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1091 / 2017
Dhruv Taunk S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste
Kumawat, Resident of 7/11, Ashok Nagar, P.S.- Bhupalpura,
Udaipur (Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Dalpat Raj S/o Sh. Ramlal, By Caste Kumawat, Resident of
Ward No. 1, 41-B, Neemuch Mata Scheme, Dewali, Police Station
Amba Mata, Udaipur (Raj.)

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pradeep Shah.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.RK Bohra, PP Mr.Vikram Choudhary.
__

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
26/10/2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant respondent

no.2. Perused the material available on record.

By way of this revision, the petitioner accused has

approached this Court for challenging the order framing charges

dated 15.7.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge

(Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Sessions Case No.81/2016

to the extent the alternative charge under Section 302 IPC was

framed by the trial Court against the petitioner along with the

charge under Section 304B IPC.
(2 of 3)
[CRLR-1091/2017]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not

challenge the order framing charge to the extent of offences under

Sections 498A and 304B IPC. However, he contends that it is

admitted case of prosecution that Smt. Yamini being the

petitioner’s wife committed suicide by hanging and leaves behind

a suicide note. In the post mortem report conducted by a medical

board, the cause of death of Smt. Yamini is opined to be hanging.

Thus, he urges that the trial Court was totally unjustified in

directing framing of charge against the petitioner for the offence

under Section 302 IPC as an alternative for offence under Section

304B IPC.

Learned P.P. and learned counsel for the complainant though

formally opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s

counsel but they could not dispute the fact that the case is one of

suicide by hanging. The deceased also left behind a suicide note

before ending her life.

Having appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the parties and after going through the material

available on record, this Court is of the firm opinion that the trial

Court was not justified in framing the alternate charge under

Section 302 IPC against the petitioner because the admitted case

of prosecution is that Smt. Yamini committed suicide by hanging

herself in the matrimonial home within seven years of her

marriage. For reaching to this conclusion, reference can be had to

Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jasvinder Saini

and Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR

2014 SC 841 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
(3 of 3)
[CRLR-1091/2017]

direction given in Rajbir @ Raju and Anr. vs. State of Haryana

reported in AIR 2011 SC 568 that the charge under Section 302

IPC should be added to every case in which accused are charged

with Section 304B IPC, should not be followed mechanically

without due regard to nature of evidence available in the case.

Apparently thus if the prosecution gives no evidence to prima-

facie show that the death of woman was homicidal, mechanical

framing of alternative charge under Section 302 IPC with Section

304B IPC cannot be approved.

Accordingly, the instant revision deserves to be and is hereby

allowed. The impugned order dated 15.7.2017 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases),

Udaipur is modified and the alternative charge framed by the trial

Court against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC is hereby

quashed and set aside. However, the trial of the petitioner shall

continue for the remaining charges i.e. Sections 498A and 304B

IPC.

Stay petition also stands disposed of.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.

S.Phophaliya/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *