Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said for quashing of criminal charges, it must be shown that there is no sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case against the accused person, as it set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which discharged husband and in-laws of a woman who died under suspicious circumstances.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale, considering the statements by witnesses indicating abuse and torture of deceased by her in-laws and other factual circumstances, said prima facie case was made against the accused persons. 

"Thus, it would be travesty of justice to put a complete stop on criminal proceedings. Further, the trial shall give adequate opportunity to the accused respondents to defend themselves," the bench said.

Thus, it allowed an appeal by Ranjeet Mittal, son of the complainant Kailash Mittal, by holding the High Court erred in quashing the order of trial court framing charges.  "The testimonies indicate that she was being abused and ill-treated in the house. Additionally, the testimony of Alok Agarwal indicates that there was a serious argument between her and her husband right before she allegedly fell off from terrace. She was taken to hospital by husband on handcart despite having alternate option of using car. No ornaments were found on her body," the bench said.

The matter related to death of one Anjali Agarwal on March 10, 2018. She was married to Sulabh Agarwal in 2006. She was living in her matrimonial home with father-in-law Kailash Babu Agarwal and mother-in-law Madhu. Her sister-in-law Shilpi was married. 

Charges were framed against all the four persons section 498-A, 306 read with section 34 of IPC and in alternate under section 302 read with section 34 and 201 of IPC in 2019.

The High Court by the impugned order, set aside the order of trial court, thereby quashing the charges against the four accused, holding that prima facie there is no material to show that the accused in any manner abetted the deceased to commit suicide and only omnibus allegations have been levelled against them. High Court also concluded that, at the most, there may be a family dispute, but that does not mean that the accused have instigated the deceased to commit suicide and there is no evidence of abetment soon before her death. 

Taking up the appeal, the bench noted statements of witnesses including father and other family members of the deceased recorded under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The father of the deceased, Kailash Narayan, who also died in 2023, has stated that he received a call from Anjali’s in-laws that she has fallen from terrace and she is serious. When he reached her house, he found her dead body after post-mortem. He stated that they were not told how she fell and he suspected that her in-laws have killed her. 

After a month of marriage, the deceased had started complaining to him that her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry they received and were constantly demanding more dowry. After the deceased had daughter, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were angry and they started beating and abusing here. Even after birth of the son in 2015, they were torturing the deceased and not allowing her to visit parental home, he had stated.

Other witnesses also related constant abuse faced by the deceased. The appellant submitted that the phone call with Alok Kumar one hour before the incidence showed foul play. Further, carrying the deceased in handcart (‘Thela’) despite having neighbours spot ready with their vehicles, created a doubt that the husband himself did not want to save his wife’s life. There is a possibility of him with help of other accused persons, had pushed the deceased from terrace. Further, the fact that deceased was not wearing any jewellery at that time, created a doubt on conduct of accused, he said.

The accused, on the contrary, said FIR has been registered against them only due to pressure of electronic and print media. They said the husband carried the deceased in handcart, only because the hospital was close to his house and it would have taken time for a car to get out. 

They also contended mere harassment does not amount to abetment to suicide. There is no prima facie offence made out against them as there is no overt act indicating active involvement to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Further, there were no ante mortem injuries and her injuries have come from falling from terrace. The same has been confirmed by the Medical officers.

Having considered the submissions of both the counsels and perused through the record, the bench said it is evident that deceased struggled in her matrimonial home and relations between her and her in-laws cannot be called healthy.

"At this stage, we do not deem it necessary to delve into the discussion of whether there is sufficient evidence to fulfil the requirements of particular sections of Indian Penal Code charged against the respondents. The trial court shall decide whether charges are proved or not in due course," it added.