Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 15: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed an order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby charges under Sections 306 and 498-A RPC had been framed against the accused, holding that the trial court failed to examine whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were made out.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar allowed the petition filed by Mohinder Kour and others, who had invoked the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Jammu and Kashmir CrPC for setting aside the order dated July 18, 2017. The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Kulwant Singh Johal with Advocate Karman Singh Johal, while none appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners had challenged the trial court order on the ground that the court had not discussed the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and had failed to satisfy itself whether the ingredients of Sections 306 and 498-A RPC were made out for framing charge.
The High Court observed that the trial court had discussed in detail the evidence relating to the plea for framing charges under Sections 304-B and 302 RPC, which had been sought by the father of the deceased, and had rightly found that no prima facie material existed for those offences. However, after rejecting that plea, the trial court proceeded to frame charges under Sections 498-A and 306 RPC without discussing the material supporting those charges.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar held that Section 306 RPC has two essential ingredients: first, there must be suicide by a person, and second, there must be abetment of that act by the accused. The court said that to frame a charge under Section 306 RPC, it must be demonstrated that the accused contributed to the suicide by some direct or indirect act, such as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid.
The court further observed that the trial court appeared to have been more focused on deciding whether charges under Sections 304-B or 302 RPC were made out, and forgot that even for framing charges under Sections 306 and 498-A RPC, it was required to examine the challan and the oral as well as documentary evidence collected during investigation.
Holding that the trial court had not performed its duty in the manner required by law, the High Court quashed the order dated July 18, 2017, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration on the question of framing charge after hearing both sides.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
