HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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,
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.)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pradeep Shah.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.RK Bohra, PP Mr.Vikram Choudhary.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
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)
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
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)
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
Stay petition also stands disposed of.