RAMJILAL & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397/401 by accused/petitioners has been preferred against an order dated 14 th December 2011 in Sessions Case No. 371/2011 passed by the Ninth Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior whereunder charges for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. or in alternative under Section 302/34 of I.P.C., under Section 306 of I.P.C. or in alternative under Section 306/34 of I.P.C., under Section 498-A of I.P.C. read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have been framed against the accused.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that on 14 th October 2011 at about 5.30 p.m., in Vyas Mohalla, village Rehat, Police Station Ghatigaon, Gwalior, Smt. Julli wife of accused Arvind (respondent No.5), whose marriage took place in the year 2002, by jumping from second storey of the house committed suicide and died during treatment in the hospital, under suspicious circumstances. On information from the authority of the J.A. Hospital Gwalior, a Marg report was lodged. After inquiry, an FIR was registered against her in-laws including her husband. After receiving postmortem report as well as query report and recording statements of the witnesses, the charge-sheet for the alleged offence under Sections 306, 498-A of I.P.C. and section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Act has been filed before the criminal court. On committal, the trial was commenced before the Sessions Judge and accordingly the charges are framed by the order impugned, hence, this revision.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the impugned order under revision petition is against the evidence collected during investigation and filed alongwith the charge-sheet papers. It is submitted that on perusal of the entire evidence as adduced by the prosecution, no ingredients of offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is made out. As per medical evidence, the injuries found on the body of deceased were antemortem in nature and therefore, due to lack of evidence or circumstantial evidence, it could not be presumed that accused by causing the injuries or pulled her down from second storey of the house committed murder of the deceased. It is further pointed out that the petitioners, who are related to the deceased from her husband side were living separately and were not present on the spot either before or at the time of incident. Hence, according to learned counsel, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of criminal law, which is liable to be set aside by allowing the revision petition.