KISHORE KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner. Kishore Kumar has been charged with the offence of harassment, cruelty and death of his wife, Smt. Yashoda on 5th February, 1989. The petitioner was married to Yashoda on 12th November, 1986. The petitioner was not satisfied with the dowry articles given. He returned the T.V. and demanded the cash amount in lieu thereof. The deceased, Yashoda had also been complaining about the harassment and torture inflicted on her by her father- in-law and mother-in-law. The petitioner at the instance of his parents had also been harassing his wife. She attended the "Pooja" ceremony at the house of Hira Lal and there she narrated about the harassment given to her. The parents of deceased Yashoda received a telephonic message about her death on 5th February, 1989 at about 10.35 A.M. The post-mortem report opined that the death was due to some obscure poisoning. It was in this background that the case against the petitioner is registered under Section 498-A/304-B, Indian Penal Code vide F.I.R.No.24/91 of P.S. Parshad Nagar, New Delhi dated 22nd January, 1991. The learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the statements recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code . prima facie came to the conclusion that a case under Section 498-A/304-B Indian Penal Code was made out and accordingly framed the charge.

(2.) It is against the framing of this charge that the present revision petition has been filed. The Revisionist has challenged the order of the learned Magistrate inter-alia on the ground that the post- mortem report indicated the cause of the death by poisoning but the C.F.S.L. report negatived the said opinion. Therefore, in the absence of there being any report indicating that Yashoda died because of the poisoning, the petitioner cannot be implicated for her death under Section 304- B, I.P.G. As regards cruelty, the testimony of Panna Devi, Phool Singh and Hira Lal would clearly show that there was no harassment inflicated by the petitioner on the deceased Yashoda. Hence the charge has been framed by the learned Trial Magistrate on presumptions, conjuctures and surmises.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the State contended that there is a sufficient material available on the record which clearly implicate the petitioner for the act of cruelty which ultimately led to her death.