URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed challenging the order on charge as well as the charge framed on 22.4.2006 by the learned Additional Sessions judge against the present petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially there were four accused in this case. The four accused were Mahesh Kumar (husband), late Banarasi Das (father-in-law), Smt Kusum (married sister-in-law) and Urmila Devi (the present petitioner) (mother-in-law). He submitted that insofar as the other three accused are concerned, they faced trial and were acquitted by a judgment and order dated 24.9.2003. The present petitioner was absconding and her trial could not commence because of that. However, after the judgment and order of acquittal of the co-accused, the petitioner has joined the proceedings and she has been charged by virtue of the order on charge and formal charge for having committed offences, firstly under Section 498A and secondly under Section 304B/34 IPC.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the present petitioner to a full fledged trial because on the same set of facts and on the same evidence, the co-accused have been acquitted by the trial court by virtue of the said judgment and order dated 24.9.2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the role ascribed to the present petitioner was in common with the role ascribed to the other co-accused and there was no specific or separate role which was ascribed to the present petitioner by the prosecution as borne out by the statements as well as the evidence which has come on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the trial court, on the basis of the entire evidence led before it, concluded that it was doubtful as to whether the deceased (Meenu) was subjected to cruelty or harassment for the sake of dowry by any of the accused person. It concluded that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against any of the accused and that it would not be safe to act upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is in these circumstances that the co-accused were acquitted on the benefit of doubt being given to them. He submits that it is the very same evidence which is going to be pressed into service against the present petitioner and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to a full fledged trial.