1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. The limited question involved in the present revision challenging the rejection of the discharge application is whether the trial Court was justified in directing the framing of a charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as “IPC”), in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs. State of Haryana, reported AIR 2011 SCC 568, without a case being made out for framing of charge under Section 302 of IPC, in addition to charge under Section 304-B of IPC.
3. The case of prosecution is that the marriage between applicant No.1 Rahul Gajanan Sangokar and deceased was solemnized on 28 April, 2019 according to Hindu rites and customs. Initially, for about seven to eight months, she was treated properly by all the accused. However, later on they started subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty. The applicant No.1 Rahul repeatedly demanded Rs.50,000/-from her parental family for purchasing a car on the ground that her father had not given any dowry at the time of marriage and insisted if she brings Rs.50,000/- from her parents then only she would be allowed to reside in the matrimonial home. Whenever she visited her parental house, she is stated to have informed her father, mother and brother about the persistent demand for money and the harassment she was facing on account of her inability to fulfil the demand.
4. Because of the collective conduct of all the applicants, she remained under continuous stress and emotional trauma. Despite this, she allegedly tolerated the harassment because she had two small children a daughter aged about three years and a four month old son and hoped that the situation would improve. It is further alleged that on the night of 13 March 2024, at about 9:00 p.m., the applicant no.1 informed father of the victim over telephone that her daughter had died by hanging herself in the house. On receiving the information, the complainant and his relatives immediately rushed to Wadegaon, where they found Swati dead in a room situated on the upper floor of the matrimonial house. Therefore, the complainant has lodged the report with PSO of PS Balapur alleging that victim death occurred within seven years of her marriage and was preceded by persistent cruelty and harassment in connection with the unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/- by the applicants. On the basis of report the above crime was registered against the applicants.
5. The applicants have filed a discharge application before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, however the learned Additional Sessions Judge Akola by the order dated 16.02.2026 rejected the discharge application filed by the applicants.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned trial Court while rejecting the application for discharge filed by the applicant, mechanically directed the framing of charge under Section 302 of IPC, merely relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs. State of Haryana, (supra), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed all trial Courts in India to add Section 302 in every case alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC. The learned counsel Shri. Salman Ali submits that the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajibir @ Raju and another Vs. State of Haryana (supra) was subsequently clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini and others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2013 (7) SCC 256, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that Section 302 of IPC cannot be added in every dowry death case as a matter of course and that such a charge can be framed only when independent prima facie evidence for invoking Section 302 of IPC is made out.
7. Shri Salman Ali further submits that the evidence collected by the prosecution i.e. FIR, supplementary statement of the complainant, statement of the parents of deceased, nowhere suggests or suspects the commission of murder of deceased Swati, who was the wife of the present applicant. The father of the deceased Bhaskar had rather stated that applicant accused has abated the commission of suicide by the deceased Swati. The perusal of the post-mortem report would show that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to hanging. There were no other injuries appearing on record. The death is not attributable to any antemortem injuries sustained by the deceased Moreover, injuries in the postmortem report shows that there was a ligature mark, V shape around neck which is suggestive of hanging. There are no statements recorded by the prosecution which suspect the commission of culpable homicide. In the absence of any such evidence collected by the prosecution, mechanical application of the 302 of IPC by the learned trial Court was therefore erroneous and therefore calls for interference by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order is result of material irregularity committed by the learned trial Court, solely relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs. State of Haryana (supra) without considering the subsequent judgment of Jasvinder Saini and others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra). The impugned order of directing the addition of charge Section 302 of IPC is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. The post-mortem examination revealed no external injuries, including contusions, lacerations, abrasions, or other signs suggestive of assault, on the body of the deceased. The complete absence of injuries mark does not corroborate allegations of commission of murder. Charge-sheet/final report filed by the prosecution also does not seek prosecution of the applicant under Section 302 of IPC, whereas the charge-sheet is filed only to prosecute the applicant under Sections 306 and 304-B of IPC along with other relevant sections. The prosecution itself did not invoke offence under Section 302 of IPC neither there is any application on behalf of the prosecution for the same. The evidence is yet to begin. Therefore, it would be necessary in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order in so far as its relates to invocation of framing of charge under Section 302 of IPC relying upon the judgment of Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs. State of Haryana (supra).
8. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri Ghogare, though strongly opposes the revision application filed against the rejection of discharge application, however, fairly submits that the direction for invocation of Section 302 of IPC mechanically relying upon the judgment of Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs. State of Haryana (supra) is an error committed by the learned trial Court.
9. Shri Ghogare, learned APP further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini and others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra) has clarified Section 302 of IPC cannot be added in every dowry death case as a matter of course and that such charge can be framed only when independent prima facie evidence for invoking the Section 302 of IPC is made out.
10. I have gone through the charge-sheet filed in the present crime. The perusal of the charge-sheet shows that applicants are charge-sheeted by the prosecution, only for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and Section 304-B of IPC along with Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and the Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution had not made any application for addition or alteration of the charge under Section 302 of IPC . The learned trial Court has mechanically directed framing of the charge under Section 302 of IPC, by merely relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs. State of Haryana (supra). However, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini and others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra) was pleased to hold as under:
“13. Be that as it may the common thread running through both the orders is that this Court had in Rajbir’s case (supra) directed the addition of a charge under Section 302 IPC to every case in which the accused are charged with Section 304-B. That was not, in our opinion, the true purport of the order passed by this Court. The direction was not meant to be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of the evidence available in the case. All that this Court meant to say was that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Section 302 can also be framed if the evidence otherwise permits. No other meaning could be deduced from the order of this Court. It is common ground that a charge under Section 304B IPC is not a substitute for a charge of murder punishable under Section 302. As in the case of murder in every case under Section 304B also there is a death involved. The question whether it is murder punishable under Section 302 IPC or a dowry death punishable under Section 304B IPC depends upon the fact situation and the evidence in the case. If there is evidence whether direct or circumstantial to prima facie support a charge under Section 302 IPC the trial Court can and indeed ought to frame a charge of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, which would then be the main charge and not an alternative charge as is erroneously assumed in some quarters. If the main charge of murder is not proved against the accused at the trial, the Court can look into the evidence to determine whether the alternative charge of dowry death punishable under Section 304B is established. The ingredients constituting the two offences are different, thereby demanding appreciation of evidence from the perspective relevant to such ingredients. The trial Court in that view of the matter acted mechanically for it framed an additional charge under Section 302 IPC without adverting to the evidence adduced in the case and simply on the basis of the direction issued in Rajbir’s case (supra). The High Court no doubt made a half hearted attempt to justify the framing of the charge independent of the directions in Rajbir’s case (supra), but it would have been more appropriate to remit the matter back to the trial Court for fresh orders rather than lending support to it in the manner done by the High Court.
11. Thus, perusal of the charge-sheet shows that the statement of the near relatives of the deceased Swati, nowhere suspect any foul play or commission of murder of deceased Swati. Rather all the statements, alleges abetment of commission of suicide. Postmortem report also shows that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to hanging. The perusal of the column no. 17 of the postmortem report shows that there are no external injuries i.e. contusions, lacerations, abrasions or fracture which would suggest any assault on the body of the deceased prior to her death. The complete absence injuries mark on the portion of the deceased rules out the allegations of commission of any assault prior to the death of the deceased. Thus, there is hardly any evidence which would suggest culpable homicide of deceased Swati instead of a suicide. The postmortem report rather shows ligature mark with V shape which is suggestive of death due to hanging and corroborates with the version of prosecution. The prosecution did not file any application for addition or alteration of the charge. In the absence of any evidence, mechanical application of Section 302 of IPC simply relying upon the judgment of Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs. State of Haryana (supra), appears to be erroneous approach adopted by the learned trial Court while rejecting the discharge application.
12. In so far as the application for discharge on other offences are concerned, the learned counsel for the applicants Shri Ali submits that the applicants are wrongly roped in the present crime and hence no offence for abetment of commission of suicide or dowry death can be made out. However, it can be seen from the statement to the effect recorded by the prosecution wherein there is cruelty and harassment to the deceased Swati by all the applicants which has led to the deceased Swati committing suicide. The statement recorded by the prosecution also directly implicates the applicant Satish Gajanan Sangokar also as one of the accused who had committed cruelty and harassment. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against all the applicants, which can be said to be sufficient to proceed. The record and the documents submitted along with the charge-sheet show sufficient material to proceed against the applicants. The scope for interference in revision is very narrow. There is no error apparent on the face of record or material irregularity committed by the trial Court in rejecting the discharge application. The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that no case for discharge of applicants is made out. Impugned order in so far as it rejects the application for discharge, is hereby maintained.
13. However, in so far as the directions issued for framing of charge under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, only on the basis of the judgment of Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs. State of Haryana (supra), the same cannot be sustained in view of the subsequent judgment of Jasvinder Saini and others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the trial Court cannot act mechanically for framing of additional charge under Section 302 of IPC , without adverting to the evidence adduced in the case and simply on the basis of the direction issued in Rajbir’s case (supra). In the present case also, merely on the basis of Rajbir’s case (supra), the learned trial Court has directed the invocation of Section 302 of IPC and framing of the charge without scrutinizing the evidence on record.
14. In view of above, the impugned order is therefore liable to be corrected in so far as directions of framing of charge under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, hence, I am inclined to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Criminal revision is partly allowed.
ii. Impugned order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Session Trial No. 218 of 2024 passed below Exhibit 13 is set aside only as regards the directions for framing of the charge under Section 302 of IPC is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii. Impugned order so far as directs framing of charge under Section 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby maintained.
15. Rule is hereby made absolute in aforesaid terms.
