RAJWANT KAUR @ RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned order dtd. 15/9/2022 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby, the Trial Court ordered the framing of charge under Sec. 306 IPC against the petitioner and the petitioner was ordered to be charge-sheeted accordingly.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that FIR (Annexure P-1) in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Karam Chand and the same has been reproduced below:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Karam Chand, since deceased himself. Even, he did not lodge any complaint against the petitioner and apparently, there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner. Rather, from the contents of the F.I.R, it is apparent that while committing suicide, Karam Chand tried to tarnish the image of the petitioner, when she refused to have any immoral relation with him. Thereafter, he himself poured petrol on himself and set himself on fire and was taken to Civil Hospital. Apart from that, even, the F.I.R was initially registered under Sec. 309 I.P.C against Karam Chand, complainant himself. However, during the course of investigation, shockingly, after the death of Karam Chand, the offence under Sec. 306 IPC was added and the petitioner was wrongly arrayed as an accused in the present case. Still further, even, after investigation, a cancellation report was prepared. However, an enquiry was illegally conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Operation, Security/Traffic and the recommendation was made to file the challan against the present petitioner, without any incriminating evidence against her.