HARJEE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused -applicants have directed this revision against the order dated 6th January, 1995 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kukshi district Dhar in S.T. No. 341 of 94, thereby framing charges against all applicants for the offence punishable under Section 304 -B, 306 and 498 -A IPC.

(2.) THE facts of the case, stated in brief are that one Gayatribai wife of applicant No.3, Radheyshyam committed suicide on 3.8.1994 by swallowing some poisonous substance in her matrimonial home at village Lohars. During the investigation of merg report with regard to unnatural death of said Gayatribai, a case under Section 396/34 IPC vide Crime No. 328/94 was registered at Police Station, Kukshi against the applicants. It is not in dispute that applicant No.1 Harjee is a father -in -law of the deceased, applicant No.2 is the mother -in -law of the deceased, applicant No.3 is the husband of the deceased and applicants No.4 and 5 respectively Radhabai and Rukhmabai are the sisters of the husband of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that unnatural death of deceased Gayatribai occurred within seven years of her marriage with applicant No.3 Radheyshyam. On perusing the material available in challan papers, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against all the applicants as indicated above. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed this revision against the order of framing of charges against them.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the applicants contended that on the strength of the evidence collected by the prosecution, no prima facie case for framing charges against applicants under Section 304 -B, 306 and 498 -A IPC is made out. The counsel specifically submitted that there is no evidence on record, at least, to frame charges against applicants No.4 and 5 for the aforesaid offences. The counsel submitted that Court has committed illegality and material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in framing charges against all applicants.