RAVINDER @ RAVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition that has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 16.09.2016 whereby the petitoner has been charged under Section 302 IPC.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the petitioner's marriage was solemnized with deceased Rajesh in the year 2000 and out of this wedlock two children were born. An FIR No. 178 dated 10.05.2016 under Sections 498-A, 302 IPC came to be registered at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat against the petitioner at the behest of the complainant Rajender to the effect that his daughter Rajesh was married to Ravinder @ Ravi, the petitioner herein and he received information that she had been killed by her in-laws. On receiving oral information, the Police Party reached the spot where a written complaint was given to the effect that he received a phone call at 7:30 P.M. on 09.05.2016 from Varinder, who asked him to accompany one person and reach the house of her daughter. The call was received from the number of his daughter. He called back and Varinder, brother of the petitioner, picked up the phone and intimated him that his daughter had done something wrong and cut off the phone. He tried to contact the husband of the deceased on his phone number, which was found to be switched off. He again called the number of his daughter Rajesh, which was picked up by unknown person who informed that his daughter had been burnt. Then the cousins of the victim went to the village and found that the deceased was burnt and lying in a cow dung store room. The inlaws of the girl pressurised them to perform last rites immediately which was denied. They called the complainant and the complainant went to the Police Station from where the police party reached the spot and police proceedings were initiated. The complainant disclosed that his daughter used to complain about the dowry demands and she was asked to get her share of the land from her father and other demands from the in-laws. On the basis of this information, the present FIR was registered under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. After investigation, challan was put up under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and the matter was committed to be tried by the Court of Sessions.

(3.) At the time of framing of charges, the Public Prosecutor argued that there is sufficient material to frame the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and alternatively a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well. This argument was rebutted stating that 306 and 302 of IPC are two distinct offences and as such no alternative charge under Section 302 of the IPC is made out. It was further argued that the Court has ample power to alter the charge under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C., if any other evidence comes to light during trial.