Case Note & Summary
This criminal revision arose from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, rejecting the discharge application of four accused in a dowry death case. The applicants challenged the trial court's direction to frame a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in addition to Section 304-B, on the ground that the trial court acted mechanically on a Supreme Court direction without independent evidence. The first applicant married the deceased on 28 April 2019. Initially she was treated well, but later she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, including a demand of Rs.50,000 for purchasing a car. On 13 March 2024, the first applicant informed the complainant that the deceased had died by hanging. The complainant found the deceased dead in an upper room. A report was lodged alleging cruelty and dowry demand. Police filed charge-sheet under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The post-mortem report showed asphyxia due to hanging, a V-shaped ligature mark, and no external injuries. The core question was whether the trial court was justified in directing framing of a charge under Section 302 IPC in addition to Section 304-B IPC without a case being made out, relying solely on Rajbir @ Raju v. State of Haryana. The applicants contended that the trial court mechanically followed Rajbir, which was clarified by Jasvinder Saini, and that no evidence suggested murder. The State also conceded that the trial court erred. The High Court examined the charge-sheet and post-mortem report. It noted that the prosecution had not invoked Section 302 and had not applied for addition. The Supreme Court in Jasvinder Saini clarified that Section 302 cannot be added mechanically; it requires independent prima facie evidence. The court found no evidence of culpable homicide, and the trial court acted erroneously. The High Court held that the trial court's mechanical application of Section 302 IPC was erroneous and that no charge under Section 302 could be framed absent independent prima facie evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Framing of Charge - Discharge - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 304-B, 306, 498-A, 34; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 4, 5 - The High Court considered whether the trial court was justified in directing framing of a charge under Section 302 IPC in addition to Section 304-B IPC without independent prima facie evidence. The charge-sheet did not invoke Section 302 and prosecution did not seek addition; post-mortem showed asphyxia due to hanging with no external injuries, indicating suicide rather than murder. Held that mechanical framing of charge under Section 302 was erroneous and not permissible as a matter of course (Paras 2, 6-11).
B) Criminal Law - Dowry Death and Murder - Distinction between Section 304-B and 302 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 304-B - The Supreme Court in Jasvinder Saini clarified that in dowry death cases, a charge under Section 302 IPC can be framed only if independent prima facie evidence exists, not merely because Section 304-B charge is framed. Ingredients of the two offences are different and evidence must be appreciated accordingly. The trial court acted mechanically by framing an additional charge under Section 302 without adverting to evidence (Paras 6, 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial Court was justified in directing the framing of a charge under Section 302 IPC in addition to charge under Section 304-B IPC, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajbir @ Raju v. State of Haryana, without a case being made out for framing of charge under Section 302 IPC.
Final Decision
Not mentioned - The provided judgment text ends before the final operative order, but the High Court's reasoning indicates that the direction to frame charge under Section 302 IPC was held to be mechanical and erroneous.
Law Points
- Section 302 IPC cannot be added mechanically in every dowry death case
- independent prima facie evidence required
- charge under Section 302 is not an alternative to Section 304-B
- ingredients differ
- trial court must advert to evidence
- Rajbir @ Raju clarified by Jasvinder Saini
- post-mortem showing asphyxia due to hanging and no external injuries rules out murder
- revision against discharge order maintainable
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (08) 148
Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2026
Shri Syed Salman Ali, Shri A.M. Ghoghre
Rahul Gajanan Sangokar, Satish Gajanan Sangokar, Gajanan Maroti Sangokar, Lata Gajanan Sangokar
State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Balapur, Akola
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against rejection of discharge application by trial court, specifically challenging the direction to frame charge under Section 302 IPC in addition to Section 304-B IPC.
Remedy Sought
Applicants sought quashing and setting aside of trial court order dated 16.02.2026 insofar as it directed framing of charge under Section 302 IPC, and discharge from the case.
Filing Reason
Trial court mechanically directed framing of charge under Section 302 IPC relying solely on Rajbir @ Raju v. State of Haryana, without independent prima facie evidence of murder, despite charge-sheet being filed only under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Previous Decisions
Additional Sessions Judge, Akola by order dated 16.02.2026 rejected the applicants' discharge application and directed framing of charge under Section 302 IPC in addition to other offences.
Issues
Whether the trial Court was justified in directing the framing of a charge under Section 302 IPC, in addition to Section 304-B IPC, in view of Rajbir @ Raju v. State of Haryana, without a case being made out for framing of charge under Section 302 IPC based on independent prima facie evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants argued that the trial court mechanically directed framing of charge under Section 302 IPC merely relying on Rajbir @ Raju v. State of Haryana, which was clarified by Jasvinder Saini v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi); that post-mortem report showed cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging with no external injuries, indicating suicide; that charge-sheet did not include Section 302 IPC and prosecution did not seek addition; therefore, mechanical application of Section 302 was erroneous and warranted interference.
State/APP conceded that the trial court erred in mechanically invoking Section 302 IPC relying on Rajbir @ Raju, and agreed that Jasvinder Saini clarified that Section 302 cannot be added in every dowry death case without independent prima facie evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 302 IPC cannot be added as a matter of course in every case where an accused is charged with Section 304-B IPC; a charge under Section 302 can be framed only when independent prima facie evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, supports the offence of murder. The two offences have different ingredients and demand appreciation of evidence from different perspectives. A trial court must not mechanically follow the direction in Rajbir @ Raju v. State of Haryana without adverting to the evidence adduced and nature of allegations; where post-mortem shows death by hanging with no external injuries and prosecution has not alleged murder, framing of charge under Section 302 is unjustified.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
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.
Procedural History
The marriage between applicant no.1 and deceased was solemnized on 28 April 2019. On 13 March 2024, applicant no.1 informed the complainant about the deceased's death by hanging. The complainant lodged a report with PSO PS Balapur alleging cruelty and unlawful demand of Rs.50,000. Crime was registered and charge-sheet was filed only under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants filed a discharge application before Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, which was rejected by order dated 16.02.2026, directing framing of charge under Section 302 IPC in addition to other offences relying on Rajbir @ Raju. Aggrieved, the applicants filed Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2026 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 304-B, 306, 498-A, 34
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: 4, 5
