RUPINDER KAUR Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the estranged wife of accused Jasbir Singh, respondent No.2. She has challenged the order dated 01.05.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Sessions Case No.491/1/13 arising out of FIR No.214/2012 (P.S.Tilak Nagar) instituted for offences under Sections 307/498A/406/34 of the IPC, whereby the charge under Section 307 against the respondents has been dropped and charges under Sections 406/498A and 34 of the IPC has been framed against the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was married to the respondent No.2 in the year 2011 but after sometime the relationship between the spouses became strained on account of demand of further dowry. The petitioner is said to have maintained reticence for quite some time in the hope that the situation would normalize. The major and the immediate cause of lodging of the FIR was an incident which occurred on 30.05.2012 when the petitioner was ill and had asked her husband for providing money for medicines. The petitioner is said to have been abused and ill treated. At about 9.45 PM, on the same day, when respondent No.2 was asked for medicine again by the petitioner, respondent No.2 is alleged to have poured a bottle of kerosene oil over her head and assaulted her. The petitioner is stated to have run out of the room and fell down on the floor. The mother -in -law, who was having a match box in her hand, came at the place where the petitioner had fallen down. Sensing serious trouble, the petitioner is said to have ran out in the streets and called her father. It is stated that the police reached after sometime and the petitioner was sent to the hospital for medical treatment. She had sustained injuries on her hands, chest and head. The learned Trial Court, on point of charge, was of the view that no offence under Section 307 of IPC could be made out as there was no material which could point towards the intention of the accused persons including respondent No.2 to attempt to commit murder of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court had to see the prima facie case only and was not required to sift the evidence or discuss the probability of conviction or acquittal under a pre criminal charge. It was further submitted that kerosene oil bottle was found from the site of the incident and when the petitioner was treated subsequently at a private hospital, she was diagnosed of infection arising out of kerosene. It was also submitted that in the investigation reports, there is reference of water in the bedroom which predicates that an attempt was made to destroy the evidence with respect to dousing of the petitioner with kerosene oil in an attempt to burn/kill her.