LAJPAT RAI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAJPAT Rai-petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 16.3.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal during the trial of the case bearing FIR No. 149 dated 24.5.1991 registered under Section 304-B I.P.C. whereby he had been summoned as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) THE essential facts to focus the controversy involved in this petition have to be noticed. Lajpat Rai-petitioner had married Usha Rani daughter of Kishan Chand on 15.4.1990. On 24.5.1991 she attempted to commit suicide by burning herself as a result of which she succumbed to the injuries on 8.6.1991 in the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. During the period she was admitted in the hospital, her dying declaration was recorded wherein she stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law used to harass her for bringing less dowry. She also stated that she had been harassed by them for not bringing Vicky (moped) and show case in the dowry and that they had used intemperate language to her. Because of the harassment faced by her from her in-laws, she set herself on fire with the help of kerosene oil at 9.10 p.m. She also stated that she had been admitted in the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak by her husband and father-in-law on 17.5.1991 and earlier to that she was taken to Civil Hospital, Kaithal. After her death inquest proceedings were held and during those proceedings Kishan Chand, father and Om Parkash, brother of the deceased attributed the harassment to only Punnu Ram, father-in-law and Bhagwani Devi, mother-in-law of Usha Rani deceased as stated by Usha Rani in her dying declaration referred to above. Parmeshwari Devi, mother of Usha Rani, in her police statement recorded on 26.5.1991 had stated that about one and half months earlier her daughter told her that her mother-in-law and father-in-law had made a demand of moped and show case which was not given to her in dowry and for that reason they had taunted her. This fact was narrated by her to Om Parkash and as thereafter she had fallen ill, she could not talk to the in-laws of her daughter Usha Rani. On completion of the investigation, the Police submitted a report under Section 173 of the Code against Bhagwani Devi and Punnu Ram under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused, while assailing the order dated 16.3.1994 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, has strenuously urged before me that the trial Judge failed to take into account that there was no material on record including the statement of Kishan Chand which could form the basis for the conclusion that the petitioner-accused is guilty of the offence for which he had been summoned to face trial and for that reason the impugned order is against the parameters laid down in Section 319 of the Code. It was also pointed out by him that the trial Judge completely overlooked the fact that the petitioner was cited as a witness by the prosecution in view of the statements made before the Police by the deceased, her parents and her brother-Om Parkash and the unreliable and after-thought version rendered by Kishan Chand during the course of his deposition could not be made the basis to overturn petitioner's position from a witness to an accused and call upon him to face the trial along with other accused in respect of the accusation made against them.