HAJI ISLAM UDDIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 4-4-1999 whereby the application of the ac cused for discharging them was rejected. An F. I. R. was lodged against the revisionists with the allegation of dowry demand, harassment and torture and for committing murder of Smt. Yasin Fatima who was married just seven months ago to Mohd. Adil. The case was registered against nine persons. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that there was no ante-mortem external injuries and vis cera was preserved and there is report of Chemical Examiner that no poison was found in the viscera as is clear from the Annexure-3. It is contended that it was natural death and deceased was given treatment at the Nursing Home. The charge-sheet however was submitted in this case against the accused persons. It is however, clear that the charge-sheet was submitted on 11-7-1999 while viscera report was prepared on 5-8- 99 and there fore, it is clear that viscera report was not with the Investigating Officer when the charge-sheet was submitted. Learned counsel for the revisionists also contended that the inquiry was made in this case by Shankar Lai, Annexure-9 and the con clusion was that it was not a case of the dowry death.

(2.) FROM a perusal of the order of the learned lower Court it is clear that learned lower Court has not taken into considera tion the report of the Chemical Examiner which shows that there was no poison found in the viscera report. He has con cluded the fact of unnatural death only on the basis of the post- mortem examination. It is, therefore, clear that the learned Magistrate committed illegality in not considering the report and other documents on record. Learned counsel for the revisionists places reliance upon 1991 (Supplement-2) SCC page 99. The said case law was passed in appeal and no help can be taken from the said case law. How ever, it is clear that the Magistrate did not consider the relevan document in con cluding that there way sufficient evidence for framing of charge. Order dated 4-4-1999 therefore, is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to re-consider the viscera report and other documents on record to conclude whether there was evidence to frame charge against the revisionists. With this observation this revision is disposed of. Revision Disposed of. .