RAKESH CHANDRA ARYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Learned Trial Court dated 18 th July, 2011 whereby charge for offence under Section 498A/34 IPC has been framed against all the Petitioners and in addition charge under Section 315/34 IPC has been framed against Petitioners Tarun Chandra and Pushpa, the husband and sister-in-law of the complainant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that on the allegations as set out in the FIR and on the basis of MLC, no case for charge under Section 315/34 IPC is made out against the Petitioners Tarun Chandra and Pushpa. The complainant was suffering from Hypothyroidism which resulted in abortion. The miscarriage took place when the complainant was at her parents place much after she had left the matrimonial home. The Doctor has been examined as PW-1 who has stated that the injures mentioned in the MLC are not sufficient for termination of pregnancy. As regards offence under Section 498A/34 IPC, it is alleged that all members of the family have been implicated without any specific role being assigned to them. On the allegations in the FIR, no charge under Section 498A/34 IPC can be made out. Reliance in this regard is placed on Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. Vs. State & Anr., 2008 2 SCC 561.

(3.) Learned APP on the other hand contends that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners and the role of each Petitioner has been stated in the FIR and the statements recorded during investigation. The statement of PW-1 Dr. Deepti Bhalla cannot be looked into as this Court will only see the evidence available with the Learned Trial Court at the time of passing of the impugned order. The benefit of the statement of PW-1 would be available to the Petitioners at the end of the trial and in case no offence under Section 315/34 IPC is made out, the Petitioners will be acquitted of the said charge. There can be no piece-meal appreciation of the evidence. The allegations of the complainant prima facie show that offence under Section 498A/315/34 IPC were committed. There being no infirmity in the impugned order the petitions be dismissed.