STATE Vs. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the State against the order on charge dated 1.3.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The State is aggrieved because the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while charging the respondents Nos. 1-3, 5 and 6 under Sections 498A/34 IPC, has discharged them in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC.

(2.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge also discharged respondent No. 4 (Suman) in respect of all the offences.

(3.) THE deceased Geeta was found dead on the night intervening 30th April and 1st May, 2000 as she was hanging from the ceiling fan at House No. 86/2, Gali No. 20, Som Bazar, Gawri, Delhi. On being informed, the police reached the spot and thereafter, the body of the deceased Geeta was taken for conducting a post mortem examination and further proceedings ensued. An FIR No. 110/2000 was registered at police station New Usmanpur, under Sections 498A, 406, 304B/34 IPC. An investigation followed the registration of the FIR and culminated in the filing of the challan. All the respondents were arrayed as accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, was pleased to discharge accused Suman, inasmuch as she did not fall within the category of relatives as specified under Section 498A IPC. He also discharged all the remaining accused for the offence under Section 304B on the ground that there was no evidence or material on record to show any demand for dowry/money either soon before or about the date of the death of the deceased. In the opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge one of the prime ingredients of Section 304B was not made out and, accordingly, he directed the framing of the charge only under Section 498A/34. The impugned order revealed that although there was an allegation for demand for Rs 51,000/-, but that demand was not raised soon before the death of the deceased Geeta and that there was no material to show that the alleged cruelty was meted out by the respondent and, in particular, by Ashok (husband of the deceased Geeta), in connection with the said demand for dowry.