JATINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE DELHI ADMN DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DECEASED Smt. Neelam was married to petitioner No. 1 Jatinder Kumar on 9th December, 1985. Petitioner No. 2 Dina Nath and petitioner No. 3 Mala Devi are parents of Jatinder Kumar. Petitioner No. 4 Kumari Veena and petitioner No. 5 Kumari Poonam are sisters of Jatinder. Neelam, according to the case of the prosecution, died of burn injuries on the night intervening 6th and 7th July, 1986. By the impugned order dated 29th August 1989 the learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed that all the petitioners are liable to be charged under Section 498A IPC and under Section 302/34 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge has further directed that in the alternative petitioners be also charged under section 336/498 IPC.

(2.) PETITIONERS 1 to 3 have no grievance in respect of that part of the order which directs framing of charge against them under sections 306 and 498A, IPC. The grievance of the said petitioners, however, is that there is no material justifying the part of the impugned order which directs that charge under section 302 is liable to be framed. The other grievance pressed on their behalf in that, is no case, the charge under section 306 IPC can be framed in the alternative. The contention is that the prosecution has to make up its mind whether the facts which can be proved justify framing of charge under section 302 IPC or charge under section 306 IPC. On behalf of petitioners 4 and 5, it is contended that there is no material whatsoever justifying the part of the order directing that the charge is liable to be framed against them.

(3.) REVERTING to the grievance of petitioners 1 to 3 it was strenuously contended by Sh. Naseem, their learned counsel, that the alternative charge of abatement of suicide under section 306 IPC cannot be framed. The argument is that it is not permissible for the prosecution to say that the accused have committed murder and at the game time, take the alternative position that they have abated the commission of suicide. The framing of charge in the alternative is permissible only within the parameters of section 221 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under :-