SUBHADRABAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revisions have been filed against the order dated 19.3.2003 thereby framing charge against the applicants under sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Add1. Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Sessions Trial No. 188/2002.

(2.) A pithy description of the prosecution case against the applicants/accused in the charge sheet is that the deceased Mamta was married with the applicant Suresh Saxena in the year 1993. After the marriage, she lived for about a year with Suresh. She was ill -treated for demand of dowry. Thereafter, she was left with her mother by the husband. Though the applicants and deceased were having strained relations, but from time to time, the husband was visiting her mother's house and she also came to the house of the husband. Out of their wedlock, one son and daughter had born. In the year 1998, husband -applicant Suresh filed a suit for divorce and the same was dismissed. At that time, she was living with her mother and brothers. Her both children were also residing with her. The deceased -wife filed an application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the husband Suresh and the same was allowed by order dated 13.8.1999 thereby granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,600/ - per month in favour of wife Mamta. The maintenance amount was not paid by the husband Suresh and, therefore, Mamta filed an application for execution. In these execution proceedings, last date was fixed by the Court as 8.3.2002. In the month of January, 2002, the father and husband of accused applicants Suresh, Indra Devi alias Savitri and Subhadrabai respectively had expired. Thereafter, the deceased Mamta was persuaded by the husband Suresh to come to attend the last ritual ceremony of her father -in -law. She succumbed to their persuasion and came to the house of the husband -applicant Suresh who was living with his mother Subhadrabai.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants in both the revisions have vehemently argued that a false case has been concocted by the brothers and relations of the deceased. Before this Court also, the documents were filed relating to the divorce proceedings and some letters showing the fact that deceased Mamta did not level any allegation with regard to all these documents about demand of dowry. After consideration of these extraneous materials out of the charge -sheet, the learned counsel have placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and another [(1996) 9 SCC 766]. Learned counsel have also cited following judgments in support of their arguments : 2002(2) JLJ 275 = 2002 CriLJ 2796), Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra (2002 CriLJ 2814), Kamlesh and others v. State of M.P. (2002 CriLJ 523) and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001(2) BLJ 113 = 2001 CriLJ 4724).