Heard Miss.Keerthana Nagaraj, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the records.
2. This Revision Petition is filed by the accused, seeking discharge of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 and 506 of IPC, which came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.03.2021.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- Upon a complaint lodged by Smt.Ayesha Siddiqua, that on 11.04.2004, she got married to Mohammed Ilyas and at the time of marriage, Rs.45,00,000/- of dowry was paid to Mohammed Ilyas. It is further contended that subsequent to marriage, there was a harassment for further dowry and on 27.12.2013 at about 8.00 a.m. Mohammed Ilyas picked up quarrel with Smt.Ayesha Sidiqua and he assaulted the complainant with hands and kicked her with an intention to take away her life. He took knife and stabbed on the stomach, neck and hands and thereby, Smt. Ayesha sustained grievous blood injuries. The complaint was initially lodged to Pulakeshinagar police station and registered as Crime No.382/2013. Subsequently, on account of the jurisdictional aspects, the said complaint was transferred to Yeshwanthpur police and Yeshwanthpur police after thorough investigation laid a charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324 and 506 of IPC.
4. The presence of the accused was secured before the Sessions Court. Soon after the appearance, the accused filed an application seeking discharge of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 307 and
506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. The said application was opposed to by the prosecution by filing written objections.
6. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties, rejected the said application by order dated 03.03.2021.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in the revision.
8. Kum.Keerthana Nagaraj, learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that there is a further statement recorded by the investigation agency at Pulakeshinagar police station on 29.12.2013 wherein, the very complainant has specifically stated that UAq U P iq AiwgAz g P rgv (meaning thereby that accused has not attempted to take away her life). However, on transfer of the case to the Yeshwanthpur police station, there is a further statement recorded by alleged eye witness Sweety Watson on 18.10.2014 signed by the witness which has been made as the basis for invoking Section
307 of IPC by the Investigation Officer.
9. It is pertinent to note that the said statement contains number of alterations of course signed by the Investigation Officer. However, it is also signed by the witness. Therefore, the very evidentiary value of said statement prima facie vanishes in view of the witness signing the statement which is said to have been recorded on 18.10.2014 by the subsequent Investigation Officer purportedly under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
10. The same also finds place in the charge sheet papers. However, the statement recorded by the earlier Investigation Officer is available in the Court records filed along with the charge sheet dated 28.12.2013, but it does not find a place in the list enclosed to the charge sheet papers. These discrepancies are not noted by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application filed by the accused.
11. In this regard, this Court heard the arguments of both the sides in detail and also secured the presence of the subsequent Investigation Officer Sri.Anjan Kumar, who has filed the charge sheet. On perusal of the records, there is no sufficient explanation offered for non inclusion of the statement dated 29.12.2013 given by Smt.Ayesha Siddiqua and inclusion of the statement given by Sweety Watson on 18.10.2014. Further, there is no material found in the charge sheet papers as to the investigation made by this Investigation Officer while visiting to the Bowring hospital and collect the case sheet or related documents from the concerned hospital. Under such circumstances, filing of the charge sheet invoking Section 307 of IPC by the investigating agency is prima facie not attracted in the case on hand.
12. Under such circumstances, the trial Judge was bound to consider the application seeking discharge of the accused for the offence punishable under Section
307 of IPC. Having failed to consider these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is an error of jurisdiction in non-exercising the power vested in the Court while dealing with an application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that in a matter of this nature, the documents filed by the prosecution alone is to be looked into and not the defense. Applying the said test to the case on hand, the prosecution papers do not support the documents found along with the charge sheet for invoking Section 307 of IPC.
13. Having regard to the discrepancies found on record, there is no explanation forthcoming from the further statement of Smt. Ayesha Siddiqua as to what made her to give a statement on 29.12.2013 as referred to supra. All these factors would go to the very root of the matter in improper investigation and also filing the charge sheet without proper evidence on record.
14. Prima facie materials on record do indicate that the accused may be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. However, the material on record is not sufficient enough to invoke Section 307 of IPC. There is a long gap between 29.12.2013 and 18.10.2014. What happened in the interregnum for the police to invoke Section 307 of IPC is the matter remained unexplained by the prosecution.
15. Taking note of all these aspects of the matter and discrepancies pointed out in the charge sheet papers itself, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case is made out by the accused revision petitioner to interfere with the order passed by the trial Judge, which is impugned in the present revision. Accordingly, pass the following:- ORDER
i) The Criminal Revision petition is allowed-in-part. ii) Application filed by the accused seeking discharge of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 307 and 506 of IPC is hereby allowed-in-part and accused is discharged for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Consequently, the trial Judge shall pass suitable orders. Sd/- JUDGE MH/-