PUSHPA SOMANI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision-petition is directed against the order passed by the trial Court dated 17/1/1991 directing applicant to be made an accused in the Sessions Trial No. 64189 having satisfied that a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicant and against issuance of warrant for her presence in the Court on 8/2/1991.

(2.) One Satyanarayan Somani is facing trial under Section 306,498 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant Pushpa Somani is a wife of Purushottam Somani brother of Satyanarayan. Sushila Bai was married to Satyanarayan about 14 years ago. Sushila Bai committed suicide by setting herself on fire on 13/3/1988. Pushpa Somani, the applicant, lodged a report of the incident in the Police Station on 13/3/1988. The applicant was cited as a prosecution witness in the charge sheet.

(3.) During the trial three prosecution witnesses were examined, Dr. Singh (P.W. 1) who had conducted the post mortem, Amravati (P.W. 2) who was said servant and Ku. Puja (P.W. 3) daughter of Satyanarayan. At that stage of the proceedings the prosecution moved an application under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that according to the police papers statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicated that Satyanarayan was having illicit relations with Pushpa, the applicant and as such Pushpa should also be made an accused in the trial. The Sessions Judge issued notice to the applicant as to why she should not be made an accused. Aggrieved by that order of issuance of notice a revision petition was filed in the High Court The High Court by its order dated 25/10/1989 has directed the Presiding Judge of the trial Court to hear arguments of both the parties on the question, if at all Pushpa Bai should be made a co-accused along with Satyanarayan.