SANGEETA Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been filed against the order dated 05.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2008 (State v. Govind and others) , summoning the revisionist for trial together with another accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the revisionist is Jethani of the deceased; that the revisionist was falsely implicated in the F.I.R with the general allegations; that the revisionist never made any demand of dowry from the deceased nor treated her with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry nor can be beneficiary of the T.V and Gold Chain allegedly demanded as dowry; that the marriage between Govind and deceased did take place on 07.05.2000 and not in the year 2001 as stated by the prosecution witnesses; that the prosecution witnesses have not given any particular date or month of the marriage and have simply stated that marriage was solemnized in the year 2001, so that the incident in question regarding death of the deceased may be covered within the period of seven years from the date of marriage; that since the death of the deceased-Poonam has taken place beyond seven years of marriage, the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C is not made out; that no application for summoning the revisionist was ever moved by the first informant and at the time of final disposal of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge instead of passing the judgment has suo-moto passed the impugned order summoning the revisionist for trial together with the other accused; that there is no prima-facie evidence of the offence against the revisionist as she is said to have informed the first informant of the missing of the deceased; the the impugned order is against the facts and law and is liable to be set aside; that in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others; (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 92 the Apex Court has held that for summoning an accused for the offences, under Section 319 Cr.P.C,, 1973 there must be more than prima-facie case and the degree of satisfaction for invoking Section 319 should be of more than a prima-facie case as exercised at time of framing charge.