RAVINDER Vs. DHARAMBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision is filed by the complainant assailing the order dated 16.01.200 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby application moved by the complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon respondent No.1, as well as, his wife Sudesh and son Sonu to face trial as coaccused for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304- B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code was rejected.

(2.) FOR the unnatural death of Rutesh in her maternal home, accused Rinku, husband of Rutesh, Rajinder son of Bhim Singh, father-in-law of Rutesh, Bala wife of Rajinder, mother-in-law of Rutesh deceased, are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Dharmbir is maternal uncle of husband Rinku; while Sudesh is the wife of Dharmbir and Sonu is the son of Dharmbir. It is admitted fact, as observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that Dharmbir, maternal uncle and his son Sonu are staying separately at Village Bodli, which is 40 kms. From village Padha; whereas Sudesh is living at Sahabad, which is 90 kms. away from village Padha and maternal home of the deceased is village Padha.

(3.) HONBLE Apex Court in the matter of Ram Pal Singh & others versus State of U.P. and another, reported in 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 131, in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 has observed as under:-