SANJAY MEHRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed on behalf of the applicants/accused being aggrieved by the order dated 3.1.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in S. T. No.314/2010 framing the charge against each of the them for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, 302,306 and 498-A of IPC.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on receiving the information at P. S Kotwali, Hoshangabar on 23.10.2009 from informer Dilip Mehra regarding unnatural death of Deepa wife of applicant No.1 while daughter in-law of applicant No.2 by hanging, on inquest intimation No.110/09 under Section 174 of Cr. P. C. was registered. In the course of it's inquiry after preparing the Panchnama of dead body, the same was sent to hospital for its postmortem, the same was carried out in which it was revealed that she died by mode of asphyxia by hanging. In subsequent inquiry of merg interrogatory statements of witnesses belonging to the parental family and other relatives of the deceased were recorded, in which it was revealed that the deceased got married with applicant No.1 on 27.1.2008, as per rite and rituals of the community. But subsequent to such marriage near about after five months the deceased on account of demand of ornaments and cash in dowry was subjected to harassment and cruelty in her matrimonial home by the applicant. Pursuant to such act of the applicants the deceased was abated and proceeded to commit suicide and committed the same by hanging. As the alleged suicide was committed within seven years from the date of her marriage, hence in the above mentioned circumstances a crime No.742/10 for the offence of Section 304-B, 498 and 34 of IPC and 3A of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the applicants. In its investigation interrogatory statements of witnesses were recorded, the applicants were arrested and on completion of investigation they were charge sheeted for the offence of Section 304-B, 306,4908-A and 34 of IPC.

(3.) ON the other hand Shri Yogesh Dhandey, learned State counsel by justifying the impugned order and charges framed against the applicants argued that the same being inconsonance with the evidence available in the charge sheet does not require any interference at this stage. In continuation, he said that trial Court had a right to frame the alternate or probable charge in the available factual matrix of the case and in such premises the impugned order could be held to be faulted. However, in response of some query he fairly conceded that on perusing the FIR as well as interrogatory statements of the witnesses the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC are not made out against any of the applicants even for framing the charge of such section. So far the charge of other sections are concerned he said that there was sufficient material on record and till this extent the trial Court has not committed any error in framing such charges.