SANDEEP CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, Advocate assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) This criminal revision has been filed against the orders dated 1.8.2007 and 22.8.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), in Sessions Trial No.251 of 2006 (State Vs. Sandeep Chaudhary), P.S. Kasona, District Gautam Budh Nagar, by which the Application 6-B moved by revisionist for his discharge under Section 306 I.P.C. was rejected on 1.8.2007 and thereafter charges under Section 306 I.P.C. were framed against him vide order dated 22.8.2007.

(3.) The brief facts relating to the case are that upon written report given by Pratap Singh, the father-in-law of revisionist, F.I.R. No.20 of 2005 was lodged at Case Crime No.28 of 2005 on 22.1.2005 at 00:10 a.m. against the revisionist and three others under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act with the allegations that Anjali Singh, the daughter of first informant was married to revisionist Sandeep Chaudhary on 23.1.1998 according to Hindu Rites and dowry was given even beyond the capacity of first informant. That after marriage there was demand of dowry and was cruelty in connection with such demands to which the first informant continued to fulfil by making payment of amounts as per his capacity. That about four days before the incident a demand of Wagon-R vehicle was made which was beyond his capacity and for non-fulfilment of above demand of dowry death of his daughter was committed by husband and in-laws of Smt. Anjali deceased, who are named in the F.I.R. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in this case against only Sandeep Chaudhary out of four named accused under Section 306 I.P.C. on 25.9.2005. The magistrate taking cognizance, committed case to the sessions and Sessions Trial No.251 of 2006 was registered. At the time of hearing on charge the sole accused moved an Application 6-B for his discharge in view of the fact that the deceased had committed suicide on account of long ailment as she was suffering from epilepsy and despite regular treatment by the revisionist she could not recover. Though the death of Smt. Anjali was caused by use of licensed revolver of revisionist but the deceased has left behind her a suicide note in which it has been specifically mentioned that she is committing suicide on account of ailment and nobody shall be responsible for her death. The above application was rejected vide order dated 1.8.2007, and 9.8.2007 was fixed for framing of charges and later on after hearing counsel for prosecution as well as accused, the trial court framed the charges against the sole accused under Section 306 I.P.C. on 22.8.2007. Feeling aggrieved this revision has been filed by the accused.