STATE OF U P Vs. BAL MUKUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Meera was married to opposite party No. 3 in the month of February 1985. Opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 are his father and mother. She died on 15-4-1988. it is said that the opposite parties wanted a Scooter in dowry and since their demand was not satisfied, they poisoned her and cremated the dead body without informing even the father of Smt. Meera. On 17-4-1981 report of this incident was lodged at the Police Station. A case was registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B. and 201IPC. The matter was investigated by C.B., C.I.D. and a chargesheet submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur who committed the opposite party to the Court of Session. It was registered as sessions trial No. 130 of 1989 and transferred to the Court of IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Hamirpur who vide his order dated 23.7,1992 discharged the opposite parties under Section 227 Cr.P.C. holding that there was no sufficient evidence to connect the opposite parties with the crime. Aggrieved by this order the State has come to this Court in revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned A.O.A. and have perused the record. None appeared for the opposite parties. A plain reading of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. shows that if upon consideration of the record of the Case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the parties, the Judge consider that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reason for doing so and if after consideration and hearing as aforesaid the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall frame in writing charge against the accused. At this stage the Court is not expected to make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if it was conducting a trial. It has only to see whether there is presumptive evidence to connect the accused with the crime,

(3.) Admittedly Smt. Meera died within seven years of the date of marriage. The witnesses during their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that the opposite parties were demanding scooter in dowry for which Smt. Merra harassed and cruelly treated. Some letters written by her, to her percnts were also collected during investigation which supported the allegations made in the F.I.R. that she was harassed and cruelly treated for dowry. Since it is alleged to be a dowry death and there was material to show that it was a dowry death, the prosecution would be entitled to take the benefit of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B of I.P.C. Under both the provisions the presumptions would be against the opposite parties. It would be for them to explain as to under what circumstances she died. According to the opposite parties, she was pregnent and died of heart attack. Statements to that effect were given before the Investigating Officer. These witnesses had no personal knowledge of heart attack. The Doctor, the Compounder and the witness came after her death and they were told by the opposite parties that she died of heart attack. They had no personal knowledge of the heart attack, Neither Doctor attended her nor she was taken to the hospital.