The Calcutta High Court has clarified that charges under Section 308 IPC for causing hurt by act endangering life cannot be sustained where the sole medical evidence is retrospective, uncorroborated, and silent on the alleged act of poisoning. This judgment reinforces the principle that speculative or manufactured allegations, especially in matrimonial disputes, cannot override the threshold for framing charges.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a marital breakdown between Bharat Soni, the petitioner, and Nandini Soni, the complainant. After their marriage in December 2015, the couple experienced escalating tensions. Nandini left the matrimonial home on March 18, 2016, without notice. Bharat Soni subsequently filed for divorce in March 2017. In retaliation, Nandini lodged a criminal complaint on July 15, 2017 - over a year after the alleged incidents - against Bharat and his family members, including his parents and siblings.
Procedural History
The case progressed as follows:
- July 15, 2017: Complaint filed at Gola Bari Police Station under Sections 498A, 406, 325, 308, and 34 IPC.
- Investigation completed: Charge sheet submitted, with Section 308 IPC added against all accused, including aged parents-in-law and siblings.
- March 2023: Trial Court rejected discharge applications under Section 227 CrPC.
- December 2023: Criminal revision filed before the Calcutta High Court under Sections 397/401 and 482 CrPC.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought discharge from the charge under Section 308 IPC, arguing that no credible evidence linked them to the alleged administration of harmful medicine on June 29, 2015. They contended the complaint was retaliatory, the medical certificate was fabricated, and the charges against non-involved family members were omnibus and baseless.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 308 IPC can be invoked against accused persons when the only medical evidence is a retrospective certificate issued two years after the alleged incident, and when the contemporaneous medical records are entirely silent on the cause of symptoms or the involvement of the accused.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Geeta Mehrotra v. State of West Bengal and Dera Lakhsmi Narayana v. State of Telangana to argue that naming family members without specific, corroborated allegations constitutes abuse of process. They emphasized that the doctor’s certificate dated July 6, 2015, made no mention of poisoning, convulsions, or administration of harmful substances. The later certificate dated July 28, 2017, was submitted only after the divorce petition and contained hearsay assertions. The petitioners argued that the High Court must intervene under Section 482 CrPC to prevent misuse of criminal process.
For the Respondent
The complainant and prosecution contended that the charge sheet contained sufficient prima facie material, including the doctor’s certificate and injury reports, to justify trial. They relied on Mohd Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar to argue that the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence at the discharge stage. They asserted that the delay in filing the complaint was explainable due to the complainant’s physical and mental trauma.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous scrutiny of the medical evidence, distinguishing between contemporaneous records and retrospective affidavits. It noted that the July 6, 2015, prescription from Dr. Kothari recorded only palpitations and no symptoms of poisoning, vomiting, or bleeding. The later certificate dated July 28, 2017, purported to recount events from 2015 and 2016 but was not a clinical record - it was a narrative statement prepared for litigation.
"The certificate issued on 28.7.2017 is not a medical opinion but a retrospective narration of facts stated to the doctor, and it cannot substitute for contemporaneous clinical documentation."
The Court held that Section 308 IPC requires proof of an act likely to cause death or grievous hurt, and that the prosecution must establish a direct link between the accused’s conduct and the injury. Here, the medical evidence failed to establish either the act or the intent. The Court further observed that the addition of Section 308 against the parents-in-law and sister-in-law was arbitrary, as no specific role was attributed to them in the complaint or charge sheet.
The Court reaffirmed that Section 482 CrPC empowers it to quash proceedings not only at the FIR stage but also after the charge sheet, if the allegations are manifestly false or malicious. It cited Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh to emphasize that discharge is a valuable right and that courts must not mechanically permit trials based on vague, omnibus allegations.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded in part. The Calcutta High Court set aside the order refusing discharge to Petitioner No. 3 (mother-in-law) and Petitioner No. 5 (sister-in-law) under Section 308 IPC. The remaining petitioners, including the husband, were directed to face trial due to specific allegations of physical assault on March 18, 2016, supported by contemporaneous medical records.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Medical Evidence Must Be Contemporaneous and Specific
- Practitioners must challenge charges under Section 308 IPC where medical records lack clinical details on the alleged act of poisoning.
- Retrospective affidavits or "to whom it may concern" certificates cannot substitute for hospital records or treatment notes.
- If the doctor’s original report is silent on the cause of injury, the prosecution cannot rely on later statements to fill evidentiary gaps.
Omnibus Allegations Against Family Members Are Insufficient
- Naming multiple relatives without individualized allegations invites abuse of process.
- Courts must scrutinize whether each accused is linked to a specific act, not merely to the family unit.
- In matrimonial disputes, blanket charges against in-laws without factual basis must be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Discharge Is Not a Formality - It Is a Substantive Right
- The High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC extends beyond FIR quashing to post-charge sheet interventions.
- Trial courts must provide reasoned orders on discharge applications; mechanical rejections are reversible.
- Practitioners should routinely file revision petitions where discharge is denied without analysis of evidentiary sufficiency.
