SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is a revision filed by one Shanti Devi, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased-husband seeking setting aside of charge-sheet dtd. 29/10/2021 whereby the charges have been framed against the petitioner and the other co-accused under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 IPC.

(2.) As per the allegations contained in the FIR which was lodged by the brother of the deceased by stating that they are three brothers and his one brother, namely, Vikas was married to Babita Rani daughter of Mulak Raj and they are also having one aged 8 years. After some time of marriage, his brother and his wife used to quarrel with each other and the disputes were got resolved in Panchayat with their mutual consent. Rakesh Kumar son of Mulak Raj, brother-in-law of his brother, Surjit Kumar son of Mulak Raj and mother-in-law Shanti Devi (petitioner) used to harass his brother and the wife of the deceased used to put pressure on his brother to vacate the house on asking of her brothers and mother. On 4/6/2019, Babita gave push to his brother who dashed against mirror and sustained serious injuries and who was rushed to Civil Hospital, Bathinda on 5/6/2019 for treatment. On 5/6/2019 in the morning at about 6.00 o'clock Babita without any information went to her parental house at Kurukshetra. On 9/6/2019, Rakesh Kumar, brother-in-law of deceased made a call from his mobile at about 8.13 a.m., and gave threats to deceased. Because of this reason, his brother being fed up with his brother-in-law Rakesh Kumar, Surjit Kumar, mother-in-law Shanti Devi (petitioner) ended his life by hanging from ceiling fan by putting rope in his neck. It has been specifically stated in the FIR that the wife of the deceased, namely, Babita, his brother-in-law and his mother-in-law usually used to say to his brother to die somewhere instead of indulging in quarrel and leave them alone otherwise they would register a case regarding demand of dowry and it was because of this fear and pressure that his brother ended his life.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the completion of the investigation, challan was presented against four persons including the petitioner and now the charges have been framed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dtd. 29/10/2021. He submitted that the petitioner is a lady and no role has been attributed to the petitioner and there is no direct evidence pertaining to the present offence qua the petitioner. He further submitted that there was no suicide note and now the charges have been framed against the petitioner and the other co-accused and the petitioner will have to face the prosecution without her fault. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana, 2019(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 847 to contend that there has to be some allegations of positive action proximate to time of occurrence on the part of the accused which compelled the person to commit suicide.