MADAN MOHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the Petitioner challenges order dated 15 th November, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing and framing of the charge under Sections 498A/306 IPC against the Petitioner herein.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that there is no evidence against the Petitioner for abetting the suicide of his wife. The marriage between the parties was performed on 23 rd April, 1994. The wife of the Petitioner fell down on 10 th July, 2002 and could not come out of the coma. She finally succumbed to the injuries on 17 th July, 2002. A complaint by Seeta Sharma, mother of the deceased was filed on 16 th July, 2002 alleging that the Petitioner used to taunt her daughter Vandana Sharma for bringing less dowry and used to create mental tension for her. The Petitioner used to harass and demanded her to bring more dowry and used to bring other girls in the house. Initially, a complaint was lodged at P.S. R.K. Puram, however later the parties entered into a compromise. Even thereafter, the Petitioner continued harassing the Complainant s daughter for bringing less dowry. On 10 th July, 2002 the Petitioner picked up a quarrel with her daughter, gave an injury upon her head and made an excuse that she had fallen down. According to the complaint, the injury on the head of the deceased was given by the Petitioner with some instrument. Thus, according to the Petitioner, there is neither instigation nor overt act abetting the suicide of the deceased. Thus, no charge under Section 306 IPC could be framed against him. Earlier also the Petitioner had challenged the previous order on charge framed by the learned Trial Court before this Court. This Court vide order dated 11 th July, 2006 passed in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 657/2004 set aside the order to the extent it directed framing of charge under Section 306 and remanded the matter back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for considering the arguments afresh on the question of framing charge under Section 306 IPC. After remand, the learned Trial Court reheard the parties and again framed the charge under Section 306 IPC.

(3.) Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, contends that the statement of Seeta Sharma, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, her supplementary statement and statement of witnesses clearly implicated the Petitioner. As per the opinion of the doctor, who conducted the postmortem, the cause of death was due to fall from height. In view of the fact that the Complainant in her supplementary statement had stated that her daughter told her that she would rather die, which clearly shows that she committed suicide in view of the conduct of the Petitioner and thus there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petition be dismissed.