Haribhajan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 August, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Haribhajan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 August, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:36933]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1508/2023
Haribhajan Ram S/o Late Shri Kana Ram, Aged About 52 Years,
B/c Bishnoi R/o 49-B Near Krishan Mandir Ratanada C Road
Jodhpur
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Mohan Ram S/o Shri Kanaram, R/o Near Baknath Ashram
         Indra Colony Phalodi Dist. Phalodi
3.       Dinesh S/o Mohan Ram, R/o Near Baknath Ashram Indra
         Colony Phalodi Dist. Phalodi
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :      Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)           :      Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
                                   Mr. Mahesh Thanvi



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

Reportable
Reserved on: 14/08/2025
Pronounced on: 28/08/2025

1. By way of filing the instant revision petition, the accused-

petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated

08.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge

(Women Atrocity Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Session

Case No.55/2022 titled “State v. Haribhajan Ram”. whereby

the learned Trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner-

accused under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C.

Brief facts:-

2. On 07.09.2018 at around 10:00 PM an FIR No.230/2018

came to be lodged at police station Mandore, District Jodhpur

against the petitioner based upon the parcha bayan/statement

given by late Smt. Geeta Devi, for the offence punishable under

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (2 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

Section 498A IPC. Smt. Geeta Devi stated that she was working as

a Constable in RAC First Battalion Mandore, Jodhpur and her

husband (present petitioner) used to mentally harass her and had

deserted her for almost ten years. She stated that whenever they

crossed each other, he used to hurl abuses and threatened to kill

her. She stated that on 05.09.2018 when she went to the Court,

her husband (present petitioner) insulted her and verbally abused

her. She stated that she had informed this fact to her brother

Dinesh and her mother & father. She further stated that she

married the petitioner-Haribhajan Ram in the year 2004 and gave

birth to two children namely, son Prakash and daughter Kusum.

She stated that earlier she had lodged a case for grant of

maintenance against the present petitioner. She stated that being

fed up with the treatment meted out to her by her husband, on

07.09.2018 she poured petrol upon her body and ignited herself

and thereafter, she was taken to the hospital. She further stated

that due to the cruelty meted out by her husband, she had

attempted to commit suicide.

3. During the course of her treatment, dying declaration of the

deceased Smt. Geeta Devi was recorded by Special Metropolitan

Magistrate, NI Act Cases, No.3 Jodhpur, wherein upon a question

being asked as to how she got in such a condition, late Smt. Geeta

Devi informed the Magistrate that day before yesterday, there was

a date in the Court case, which she had filed against her husband

i.e. present petitioner and during the course of cross-examination,

learned counsel for the petitioner had asked her various

uncomfortable questions to her and had tried to cause difficulty for

her on each date. She further stated that her husband had

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (3 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

tortured her whenever he met her and he used to cause difficulty

for her and used to level frivolous allegations against her. She

further stated that because of the mental tension, she had tried to

commit suicide, for which, her husband was responsible. She

further stated that for the last twelve years, her husband was

cause of unhappiness as he had married somebody else and had

abandoned herself and her children.

4. Smt. Geeta Devi succumbed to the burn injury on

20.09.2018 i.e. around 14 days after the date of incident. The

police had thereafter recorded the statement of various witnesses,

including Mohan Ram – father of the deceased, Dinesh-brother of

the deceased, Mohani Devi-mother of the deceased, Prakash-son

of the deceased, Pawan Rankawat-advocate of the deceased, and

Bharat Sodha and Sulochana i.e. neighbours of the deceased. The

police after investigation had came to a conclusion that offence

punishable under Section 498A IPC was made out against the

petitioner. However, post direction issued by the Commissioner of

Police, Jodhpur dated 26.01.2019, the investigating officer was

changed and post investigation the police filed the chargesheet

against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 498A

and 306 IPC. Post taking of cognizance, the matter was listed at

the stage of framing of charge. The petitioner prayed for discharge

before the learned trial Court. However, the learned trial Court

while observing that, all the grounds taken by the learned counsel

for the petitioner can be decided only at the stage of trial and not

at the stage of framing of charge, proceeded to frame charges

against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 498A

and 306 IPC.

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (4 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

Submission by the counsel for the petitioner:-

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, for the

purpose of establishing the offence under Section 306 IPC,

abetment to commit suicide by the accused is a prerequisite. He

further submitted that abetment of a thing has been defined under

Section 107 of IPC, wherein for the purpose of abeting a thing, a

person has to be shown to instigate any person to do that thing or

to intentionally aid, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of

that thing. He submitted that both the ingredients are

conspiciously missing in the present case, even if, the case of each

of the prosecution is admitted as it is. He further submitted that

even for bringing home the offence under Section 498A IPC, the

subjecting of a woman to cruelty i.e. any wilful conduct which is of

such nature as is likely drive the woman to commit suicide has to

be averred and proved. However, in the present case, there is no

such averment whatsoever. He further submitted that a bare

perusal of the dying declaration of the deceased will reveal that

she made allegations against the counsel for the petitioner that he

had asked certain uncomfortable questions to her during the

course of cross-examination and based upon that she had further

stated that her husband used to harass her whenever she used to

go to the Court on the dates fixed. He further stated that even

assuming that the deceased had stated that the husband-

petitioner used to level certain wrong allegations against her, then

too, no case of cruelty or abetment is made out. He rather

asserted that the perusal of the dying declaration itself will reveal

that the reason of committing suicide was that the petitioner had

allegedly left the deceased since last twelve years and had

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (5 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

contacted second marriage. He submitted that contacting second

marriage would not make out a case of cruelty or abetment.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

prosecution itself admits, as per the averment made by Smt.

Geeta Devi in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C,

that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on

21.07.2004 and thereafter the husband had abandoned her in the

year 2006. He stated that in the year 2009, deceased got

employed in the HadiRani Battalion of RAC, wherein she had

shown herself to be divorcee while seeking appointment in that

category. He stated that as per allegations levelled, whenever the

Court date was there, the husband used to insult her, but no other

specific allegation has been leveled against the present petitioner

with regard to the words used or the nature of harassment etc. He

asserted that it is an admitted fact, based on the statement of late

Smt. Geeta Devi herself, that she and the present petitioner have

been living separately for the last eleven years.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a

perusal of statement of Dinesh i.e. brother of late Smt. Geeta Devi

will reveal that whenever she used to go to Court, the present

petitioner used to insult her, because of which, she was very sad.

He further asserted that Dinesh has in so many words, stated that

during the course of cross-examination, the counsel for the

petitioner had asked certain uncomfortable questions to Smt.

Geeta Devi, due to which, she was mentally upset and thereafter

poured petrol upon herself. He further stated that identical

statements have been given by father of late Smt. Geeta Devi,

Shri Mohan Ram, wherein he also admitted that the petitioner and

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (6 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

late Smt. Geeta Devi have been living separately since the year

2007. On 05.09.2018 the counsel for the petitioner, one Sahiram

and other one Kanvarlal had threatened Smt. Geeta Devi, due to

which, she was very afraid and therefore committed suicide.

Identical statements have been given by Smt. Mohani Devi i.e.

mother of the deceased.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

Jaiprakash i.e. son of late Smt. Geeta Devi, stated in his

statement, that the petitioner did not used to visit the place where

he used to stay with his mother. He also stated that on the Court

date the present petitioner hurled certain abusive words to Smt.

Geeta Devi and no other overt act was attributed to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the

statement of Shri Pawan Rakavat, learned counsel for the

deceased Smt. Geeta Devi, reveals that he admitted that on the

Court date there was no conversation between petitioner and

deceased Smt. Geeta Devi nor was any threat given by the

petitioner to late Smt. Geeta Devi. He further stated that late Smt.

Geeta Devi never informed him about being under any pressure or

discomfort due to the petitioner. He further stated that the claim

for interim maintenance filed by late Smt. Geeta Devi was

dismissed by the trial Court and same was affirmed by the

Appellate Court. He further submitted that against both the

abovementioned orders, a revision petition has been filed before

the High Court, which is pending consideration. He further stated

that post the Court date, late Smt. Geeta Devi came along with

the present petitioner to his chamber and appeared very normal

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (7 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

and on that date there was no talk, altercation or any other thing

between the deceased-Smt. Geeta Devi and the present petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the

statement of independent witnesses, Mrs. Sulochana and Bharat

Sodha will clearly reveal that the deceased Smt. Geeta Devi used

to stay with one Manphool, and on the date of incident, Manphool

tried to save Smt. Geeta Devi. However, she succumbed to the

burn injuries. The counsel thus submitted that perusal of the

statements and documents will itself reveal that even if what has

been stated by the witnesses, as also, the dying declaration of the

the deceased is treated to be correct as it is, then too, the

necessary ingredients for offences punishable under Sections 498A

and 306 IPC are not made out. He submitted that the trial Court

has to apply its mind to the allegations made and the documents

available on record and there has to be a sifting and weighing of

evidence, though for a limited purpose.

10. He further asserted that the trial Court cannot act as a

mouth piece of the prosecution but must apply its mind to the

record of the case and thereafter come to a definite conclusion,

whether the ingredients of the offence in question are made out or

not. In order to buttress his submission, learned counsel relied

upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court rendered in the case

of “Patel Babubhai Manohardas and Ors. v. State of

Gujarat” 2025 INSC 322 in Criminal Appeal No. 1388 of 2014

decided on 05.03.2025 and the judgment of this Court rendered in

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1155/2023 titled “Mangal

Singh v. State and Ors.” decided on 24.01.2025. He thus

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (8 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

prayed that the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set

aside and an order of discharge should have been passed.

Submission on behalf of counsel for the State and

Complainant:-

11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Mahesh Thanvi,

learned counsel appearing for the complainant supported the

order in question and submitted that at the stage of framing of

charge, the court cannot go into the niceties of the evidence

available on record and the sifting and weighing of the evidence

can be done only for limited purpose. Learned counsels further

submitted that this Court while exercising powers of revision

under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. would not like

to interfere in the matter, as in the case in hand the order is well

reasoned and has been passed after considering the entire

evidence. Learned counsels further submitted that there is no

perversity in the order in question and the order in question has

been issued in accordance with law. They further submitted that

the High Court should not meticulously examine the evidence and

find out whether the end result would be conviction or not at the

stage of framing of charge. They further submitted that the order

impugned has rightly been passed. It was further submitted that

the evidence on record clearly made out the allegations against

the petitioner with all the necessary ingredients to bring home the

offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC.

12. Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, learned counsel vehemently submitted

that the statement given by the deceased as well as her dying

declaration are sufficient to show instigation and abetment on the

part of the petitioner as well as the cruelty meted out by him upon

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (9 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

the deceased and therefore the order impugned has rightly been

passed. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment

passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “State of Madhya

Pradesh v. Deepak” in S.B. Criminial Appeal No.485/2019

decided on 13.03.2019.

Applicable law & relevant case law on point in issue:-

As far as the provisions of Sections 306, 107 & 498A IPC are

concerned, the same provide as under:

“306. Abetment of suicide:–If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

“107. Abetment of a thing:–A person abets the doing of a
thing, who–

First.–Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.–Engages with one or more other person or persons
in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.–Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.–A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or
by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or
procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing.”

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting
her to cruelty:–Whoever, being the husband or the relative of
the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means–

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with
a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (10 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.”

13. A clear reading of the plain language of these Sections will

reveal that to attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, the

accused should have abeted the commission of suicide. A person

is said to abet the doing of a thing who instigate any person to do

that thing or engages in conspiracy with one or more persons for

doing of that thing and if an act or illegal omission takes place in

pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to commit that thing or

intentionally aids by act or illegal omission. However, for the

present case, as far as the provisions under Section 498A IPC are

concerned, it will reveal that to bring home the ingredients of

offence punishable under this Section, it was on the part of the

prosecution to show that the husband did any wilful conduct which

is of such nature as is likely to instigate the woman to commit

suicide.

14. As far as the provisions of Section 306 IPC are concerned,

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Ramesh Kumar v. State

of Chhattisgarh” (2001) 9 SCC 618 had observed as under:

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be
used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence.
Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where
the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued
course of conduct created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide
in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word
uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.”

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (11 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

15. Subsequently, in the case of “M. Mohan v. State” (2011) 3

SCC 626 of Hon’ble Apex Court, it was observed in Para 45 as

under:

“45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act
which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and
this act must have been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he/she committed suicide.”

16. In “Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P.” 1995 SCC (Cri)

943 of Hon’ble Apex Court, observed in Para 3 as under:

“3. …Those words are casual in nature which are often
employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling
people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The
said act does not reflect the requisite ‘mens rea’ on the
assumption that these words would be carried out in all
events.”

17. In “Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal” (2010) 1 SCC

707, of Hon’ble Apex Court, observed in para 12 as under:-

“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section
306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence
adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no
other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide
there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to
the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of
harassment without there being any positive action proximate
to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led
or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms
of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.”

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (12 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

18. Recently the hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Mahendra

Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh“, (2025) 4 SCC 801 while

dealing with the earlier judgments, held as under:-

“16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section
306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission
of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played an active role by an
act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the
person charged with the said offence must be proved and
established by the prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC.”

“19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement
of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a
continued course of conduct should have created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered
in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.”

“22. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts
created circumstances which left the deceased with no other
option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of
the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated,
are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option
but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a
realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in
mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of
two months and twenty days.”

19. Recently again, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

“Ayyub v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.” 2025 INSC 168 in

Criminal Appeal No.461/2025 by way of its judgment dated

07.02.2025 while reiterating the observations made in the case of

Mahendra Awase (supra) and while considering all other

judgments on the issue, held as under:

“21. We find none of the ingredients required in law to make out
a case under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned in

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (13 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the material on
record. The utterance attributed to the appellants assuming it to
be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the
deceased Tanu with no other alternative but to put an end to her
life. The surrounding circumstances, particularly the prior
lodgment of the FIR by the first appellant against the family of
Tanu for the death of his son Ziaul Rahman, does indicate an
element of desperation on the part of the respondent no. 2 to
somehow implicate the appellants. Reliance of the statements
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. belatedly on
07.11.2022,08.11.2022 and 22.11.2022, only reinforces out
suspicion viz. one-sided, partial and inimical investigation. Under
these circumstances, proceeding with the trial against the
appellants in the charge-sheet as filed will be a gross abuse of
process.”

20. Furthermore, this Court in the case of “Mangal Singh v.

State of Rajasthan & Anr.“: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition

No.1155/2023, decided on 24.01.2025 had an occasion to deal

with various judgments dealing with the issue in hand and held

that even if all the evidence on record including the chargesheet

and statements of witnesses are taken to be correct, if there is no

iota of evidence against the petitioner then charges should not be

framed. It was further observed that if it cannot be shown that the

deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the

unfortunate act of the suicide and the motive to abet suicide is

also not provided, then the necessary ingredients of proceeding

with trial under Section 306 IPC is not made out.

21. Based upon the consideration of the provisions as well as the

case law on the topic in question, it is clear that the words uttered

which are casual in nature and often employed in the heat of the

moment between quarreling people cannot show the existence of

requisite mens rea for the offences to make out a offence

punishable under Section 306 IPC. It is further clear that in order

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (14 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

to bring home the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC,

specific abetment, as contemplated under Section 107 IPC, on the

part of the petitioner with an intention to abet the suicide of the

person concerned, is required. Thus, intention of the accused to

aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a

must for attracting Section 306 IPC and furthermore, the person

concerned i.e. accused must have been shown to play an active

role by act of instigation or by doing certain acts to facilitate the

commission of suicide.

22. Furthermore, a reasonable certainty to impact and the

consequences of the same must be capable of being spelt out. It

is thus clear that the requisite mens rea to commit the offence

and the knowledge of the consequences of the alleged abetment

are necessary and have to be shown in existence to bring home

the offence in question. Not only this, the act of the committing

suicide while seeing no option on the part of the deceased and the

act on the part of the accused being such that he must have

intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she

commits suicide is also a necessary ingredient to bring home the

offence in question against the accused person.

Analysis and Reasoning:-

23. If the record of the present case is considered, a perusal of

the statement of the deceased, based upon which the FIR was

lodged as well as her dying declaration will reveal that she had

leveled allegations against counsel for the petitioner for asking

frivolous and certain uncomfortable questions during the cross-

examination and harassment being meted out by the petitioner as

also leveling of wrong allegations as a reason to commit suicide.

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (15 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

She has further stated that she was under mental tension due to

the fact that her husband i.e. present petitioner had left her in

destitute for last twelve years and married somebody else. This

coupled with the statement given by Dinesh-brother of the

deceased, Mohan Ram-father of the deceased, Mohani Devi-

mother of the deceased and Jaiprakash-son of the deceased will

reveal that they all in unison had stated that the counsel for the

petitioner had asked certain uncomfortable questions on

05.09.2018 and thereafter certain allegations have been leveled

against the petitioner of harassing her without specifying any act

which forced the deceased to commit suicide or to make out any

case of abetment on the part of the petitioner.

24. Rather, on the contrary, the statement of Pawan Rakavat,

learned counsel for the respondent, reveals that no incident as

sought to be portrayed ever took place on the date in question,

and that there was no altercation between the deceased and the

petitioner whatsoever. The neighbours, Sulochana and Bharat

Sodha, had rather stated that the deceased used to stay with her

husband, Manphool and not with the present petitioner. This

coupled with the fact that, admittedly as per the statement of the

deceased herself, the marriage was solemnized between the

petitioner and deceased way back in the year 2004 and since 2006

onwards, they have been living separately, there is no evidence to

show that the accused had meted out the deceased with cruelty to

bring home the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC or to

instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide to bring home

the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (16 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

25. The entire evidence of the prosecution even if admitted as it

is, will reveal that the same has not been able to bring out any act

of abetment on the part of the petitioner to force the deceased to

commit suicide or with a knowledge that the deceased would

commit suicide. Simple use of abusive language, even if it is

admitted to be true, then too, would not bring home the offence

punishable under Section 306 IPC. Not only this, no specific

averment or assertion has been made in the evidence of all the

witnesses, including the dying declaration or the parcha bayan of

the deceased, to show what were the words uttered or what was

the act which instigated the abetment of suicide. Thus, the

prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against

the petitioner and rather it is on record that the deceased was

experiencing significant emotional distress due to the failed

relationship and due to the fact that the petitioner was undertaken

second marriage and was not living with her, which by itself does

not constitute commission of an offence punishable under Sections

498A and 306 IPC. The existence of strained relationship between

the parties undermines the theory that the action of the accused-

petitioner was responsible for driving the deceased to commit

suicide. Learned trial Court has failed to consider this aspect of the

matter while passing the order impugned.

26. As far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for

respondent in the case of “State of Madhya Pradesh v.

Deepak” (supra) is concerned, it provides that at the stage of

framing of charge, the Court is not concerned with the proof of

allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an

opinion, whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (17 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

committed an offence, which if put to trial could prove his guilt.

The framing of charge is not at a stage at which the final test of

guilt has to be applied. The Court at the stage of framing of

charge is required to sift and weigh the evidence for a limited

purpose only to satisfy itself that if the facts, emerging from the

material and the documents placed on record, are accepted at

their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients

constituting the alleged offence or offences. At the stage of

framing of the charge, the Court has to consider the material with

the view to find out if there is a ground for presuming that the

accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of

arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a

conviction.

27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, time and again, dealt with

the powers of the Court while framing charges and the relevant

considerations qua the same. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v.

Central Bureau of Investigation: 2010 9 SCC 368, the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 of Cr.P.C.

21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope
of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the following
principles emerge:-

(i) The Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under Section 227 of the
Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out. The test to determine
prima facie case would depend upon the facts of
each case.

ii) Where the materials placed before the Court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused which

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (18 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

has not been properly explained, the Court will be
fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding
with the trial.

iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or
a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the Court, any basic infirmities
etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.

iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the
Court could form an opinion that the accused
might have committed offence, it can frame the
charge, though for conviction the conclusion is
required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the offence.

v) At the time of framing of the charges, the
probative value of the material on record cannot
be gone into but before framing a charge the Court
must apply its judicial mind on the material placed
on record and must be satisfied that the
commission of offence by the accused was
possible.

vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court
is required to evaluate the material and documents
on record with a view to find out if the facts
emerging therefrom taken at their face value
discloses the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. For this limited
purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected
even at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is
opposed to common sense or the broad
probabilities of the case.

vii) If two views are possible and one of them
gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from
grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (19 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is
not to see whether the trial will end in conviction
or acquittal.

24. At the stage of framing of charge under Section 228
of the Cr.P.C. or while considering the discharge petition
filed under Section 227, it is not for the Magistrate or a
Judge concerned to analyse all the materials including
pros and cons, reliability or acceptability etc. It is at the
trial, the Judge concerned has to appreciate their
evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the
statement, veracity of various documents and free to take
a decision one way or the other.”

28. In the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau

of Investigation: 2020 2 SCC 768, the Hon’ble Apex Court,

while dealing with the considerations to be undertaken at the

stage of framing of charge, held as under:-

“LEGAL PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE IN REGARD TO AN
APPLICATION SEEKING DISCHARGE

17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We
refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier
decisions, viz., P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and discern the
following principles:-

17.1 If two views are possible and one of them gives
rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave
suspicion, the Trial Judge would be empowered to
discharge the accused.

17.2 The Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame
the charge at the instance of the prosecution.

17.3 The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in
order to find out whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the
statements recorded by the Police or the documents
produced before the Court.

17.4 If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to
adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully
accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination
or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, “cannot
show that the accused committed offence, then, there

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (20 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the
trial”.

17.5 It is open to the accused to explain away the
materials giving rise to the grave suspicion.

17.6 The court has to consider the broad probabilities,
the total effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the court, any basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would
not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the
pros and cons.

17.7 At the time of framing of the charges, the
probative value of the material on record cannot be
gone into, and the material brought on record by the
prosecution, has to be accepted as true.

17.8 There must exist some materials for entertaining
the strong suspicion which can form the basis for
drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the
accused.

18. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the
stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section
227 of the Cr.P.C. (See State of J & K v. Sudershan
Chakkar). The expression, “the record of the case”, used in
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., is to be understood as the documents
and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code
does not give any right to the accused to produce any document
at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of
the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the
material produced by the Police (See State of Orissa v.
Debendra Nath Padhi).”

29. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar

Kashyap: 2021 11 SCC 191, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while

again dealing with the issue, held as under:-

“11.1 In P. Vijayan (supra), this Court had an occasion to
consider Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. What is required to be
considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or
considering the discharge application has been considered
elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that at
the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (21 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that
in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its
fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the
documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose
that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so
as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if
the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground
to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C., if
not, he will discharge the accused. It is further observed that
while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out
by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter
into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and
balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the
function of the court, after the trial starts.

11.2 In the recent decision of this Court in the case of M.R.
Hiremath (supra), one of us (Justice D.Y. Chandrachud)
speaking for the Bench has observed and held in paragraph 25
as under: (SCC p. 526)
“25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant
of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an
application for discharge under the provisions of
Section 239 Cr.P.C. The parameters which govern
the exercise of this jurisdiction have found
expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a
settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge the court
must proceed on the assumption that the material
which has been brought on the record by the
prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order
to determine whether the facts emerging from the
material, taken on its face value, disclose the
existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute
the offence. In State of [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh
Rajan], (2014) 11 SCC 709, adverting to the
earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held: (SCC
pp. 721-22, para 29)
“29. … At this stage, probative value of the
materials has to be gone into and the court
is not expected to go deep into the matter
and hold that the materials would not

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (22 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what
needs to be considered is whether there is a
ground for presuming that the offence has
been committed and not whether a ground
for convicting the accused has been made
out. To put it differently, if the court thinks
that the accused might have committed the
offence on the basis of the materials on
record on its probative value, it can frame
the charge; though for conviction, the court
has to come to the conclusion that the
accused has committed the offence. The law
does not permit a mini trial at this stage.”

13. Having considered the reasoning given by the High
Court and the grounds which are weighed with the High Court
while discharging the accused, we are of the opinion that the
High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in exercise of the
revisional jurisdiction and has acted beyond the scope of
Section 227/239 Cr.P.C. While discharging the accused, the
High Court has gone into the merits of the case and has
considered whether on the basis of the material on record, the
accused is likely to be convicted or not. For the aforesaid, the
High Court has considered in detail the transcript of the
conversation between the complainant and the accused which
exercise at this stage to consider the discharge application
and/or framing of the charge is not permissible at all.”

30. Recently, in the case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v.

Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors.: 2023 7 SCC 633, the

Hon’ble Apex Court, held as under:-

“11. The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the
time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case
in which the Trial Court had not yet framed the charges.
Immediately after filing of charge sheet, application for
discharge was filed. The settled proposition of law is that at
the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence
produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no
offence is made out then only an accused can be
discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of
the material produced can be done only at the stage of
trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (23 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

prima facie case is made out against the accused persons.
Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if
there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is
allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of
process of the Court.”

31. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh

Rao: 2023 17 SCC 688, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while again

dealing with the issue of relevant considerations at the stage of

framing of charge, held as under:-

“10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge the court must
proceed on an assumption that the material which has been
brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate
said material in order to determine whether the facts
emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose
the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence
alleged.”

12. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at
the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The
expression “the record of the case” used in Section 227
Cr.P.C. is to be understood as the documents and articles, if
any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give
any right to the accused to produce any document at the
stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the
accused is to be confined to the material produced by the
investigating agency.

13. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of
charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at
this stage, the probative value of materials on record need
not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier
decisions in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa
(1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP Vs. Mohan Lal
Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to
be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is
to test the existence of prima-facie case. It is also held at the
stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a
presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients
constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go
deep into probative value of the material on record and to

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (24 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

check whether the material on record would certainly lead to
conviction at the conclusion of trial.

19. The plea or the defence when requiring to be proved
during course of trial is itself sufficient for framing the
charge. In the instant case, the learned Trial Judge has
noticed that explanation provided by the respondent accused
pertaining to purchase of shop No.7 of Suman City Complex
of plot No.19, Sector-11 from the loan borrowed and paid by
the respondent was outside the check period and hence the
explanation provided by respondent is a mere eye wash. This
is an issue which has to be thrashed out during the course of
the trial and at the stage of framing the charge mini trial
cannot be held. That apart the explanation offered by the
respondent accused with regard to buying of Maruti Wagon-R
car, Activa scooter, purchase of house etc., according to the
prosecution are all the subject matter of trial or it is in the
nature of defence which will have to be evaluated after trial.”

32. Thus, considering the mandate of Sections 227 and 228 of

Cr.P.C. as well as the relevant judgments upon the issue in hand,

it is clear that at the stage of framing of charge, the weighing and

sifting of evidence is limited to extend of considering whether if a

prima facie case is made out against the accused-petitioner or

not. It is further clear that if based upon the material available on

record, case of grave suspicion is made out against the petitioner-

accused, then the Court has no other option but to frame charges

and to proceed with the trial. Rather, even if, Court comes to form

an opinion that the accused-petitioner might have committed the

offence, it has to proceed with the trial after framing charges.

33. At the same time, it is also clear that the Court cannot act as

a mouth piece of the prosecution or as a mere post office and it

has to apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record

before it. It is further clear that, if after considering the entire

material adduced by the prosecution, to prove the guilt of the

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (25 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

petitioner-accused, even if, the same is fully accepted at face

value, without being challenged and cross-examined or rebutted

by defence, fails to establish the necessary ingredients of the

offence or to establish that the petitioner-accused has committed

the offence, then the trial Court ought to discharge the petitioner-

accused at the stage of framing of charge. The law thus requires

the rights of both the parties to be taken care of and when the

prosecution case, even if, accepted to be true on its face value,

does not make out the necessary ingredients of the offence in

question then the trial Court cannot proceed with and the accused

cannot be forced to undergo the trial in such a situation. The same

would rather be abuse of process of law and cause grave injustice

to the accused-petitioner.

34. It is also trite that, as far as revisional power is concerned,

prior to reversing any finding, the Court is required to satisfy itself

as to the legality and correctness of the proceedings or the order

made in the case. The object of the provision is to set right a

patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law, and the revisional

Court should not unduly interfere or meticulously examine the

witnesses on record to form an opinion whether the end result

would be conviction or not. It is in order to prevent patent

miscarriage of justice or correcting a grave error that the

revisional power should be exercised.

35. However, the law is also well settled based upon the

judgments, reference to which has been made (supra) that even if

the evidence available on record is admitted as it is, then too, if

the ingredients of the offence are not made out then, the order

framing charge cannot be sustained. In the present case, even if

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36933] (26 of 26) [CRLR-1508/2023]

the evidence available on record is accepted as it is, then too, it

cannot connect the petitioner with the crime in question. Thus,

permitting the prosecution to proceed with the trial in the present

case would essentially cause patent miscarriage of justice and a

grave error and would essentially be an abuse of process of Court

leading to injustice. Thus, the order impugned dated 08.08.2023

passed by the learned Trial Court framing charges against the

petitioner under Sections 498A and 306 IPC cannot be sustained

and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

36. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and while

quashing the impugned order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases),

Jodhpur Metropolitan in Session Case No.55/2022 (State v.

Haribhajan Ram), the petitioner is discharged from the said

offences. If the petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender the bail

bonds.

(SANDEEP SHAH),J
123-Love/-

(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)