NITESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 preferred by the petitioners-accused is directed against an order dated 11th February, 2011 in Sessions Case No. 299/2009 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha, framing thereby charges against accused/petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC. The facts, in short, just for the decision of this revision are that accused-petitioner No. 1 Neelesh Yadav was married to deceased Priyanka on 23rd January, 2007 at Ganj Basoda. Prior to her marriage, she was working as Samvida Shala Shikshak, Class III in Village Iklod, Tehsil Sironj, District Vidisha, which was just near to the place of her parental house whereas her husband-accused Neelesh Yadav and her mother-in-law were residing in Village Bana Pura Siwani Malwa District Hoshangabad. It is stated that during summer vacation, she often used to come to her matrimonial house at Village Bana Pura Siwani Malwa, District Hoshangabad. It is alleged that when she returned back to her parental home, every time she complained about her in-laws to her parents. This time also, when she left for her matrimonial house and came back to her parental house for attending the departmental training during summer vacation, it is alleged that just after completion of the said training on 25th June, 2009, she committed suicide by hanging herself in her parental house. On report, the Merg was registered and on inquiry the FIR was lodged for offence under Section 304-B of IPC against the petitioners/accused. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Criminal Court. On committal, the Sessions Trial was commenced and charges, as mentioned above, were framed against the petitioners/accused, hence this revision.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Trial Court committed grave error of law and overlooked the facts at the time of framing the charge against the petitioners. It is contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the charge-sheet and the evidence gathered during investigation. The Trial Court did not consider that Smt. Priyanka died by hanging herself in the house of her parents and she returned back from her matrimonial house before four days before the incident because she had to mark her joining in the Departmental Training Programme to be held at Sironj, District Vidisha. It is submitted that there is not an iota of evidence to show that the deceased soon before her death was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, in connection with any demand of dowry by her husband or any relative of her husband. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the revision, the accused be discharged of the alleged offence.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, on the other hand, supported the order framing charge against the accused and prayed for dismissal of the revision.