RAVINDER SINGH ALIAS SONU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.09.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide which the petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offences under Section 304-B, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and alternatively under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) In brief, it is submitted that the deceased Gurpreet Kaur was the first cousin of the petitioner, being the daughter of uncle (Masar) Nirmaljit Singh of the petitioner. Deceased Gurpreet Kaur met with Harwinder Singh @ Honey earlier in some family function and they both fell into love with each other and thereafter, they both proposed to their parents and being the relatives, the parents of both the families got agreed to marry them. It is mentioned that about three years back, they got married and thereafter, they were both residing happily at their house at Karnal. It is stated that the petitioner is residing at about 100 km away from their house at Karnal and doing the work of Carpenter and due to the same he remained busy in his work. It is further submitted that the petitioner was shocked to learn with regard to the suicide committed by deceased Gurpreet Kaur by hanging herself at Karnal. Thereafter, the complainant, uncle of the petitioner, reached at Karnal with the family members along with the petitioner. At Karnal, when they met with the petitioner and after discussing with each other, the complainant asked the petitioner to make a statement against the in-laws family of the deceased to register the FIR against them. However, the petitioner refused to make any false statement, as the petitioner was not aware about any dispute between the deceased and her husband. It is stated that no demand of dowry was ever made in the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner or his wife had not intervened the married life of couple at any point of time as they had got married due to their love affair. It is further submitted that the deceased wrote a suicide note with her hand and stated in the same that she is committing suicide being fed-up from life and nobody is at any fault. The deceased specifically mentioned in her suicide note that nobody is responsible for her death and she had committed suicide due to some personal reasons. Nothing has been mentioned with regard to any demand of dowry either by her husband or by anybody else. It is mentioned that after completing the investigation, the investigating agency filed the challan against the petitioner without their being any cogent evidence against the petitioner. It is submitted that by the impugned order dated 09.09.2017, learned trial court has issued the charge-sheet against the petitioner, without considering and perusing the challan and evidence against the petitioner, which has been challenged in the instant revision.

(3.) Mr. D.S. Virk, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner with regard to demand of dowry at any point of time in the FIR nor any such evidence has been collected by the investigating agency. It is contended that the complainant has not given any specific incident, that the petitioner is also responsible for driving the deceased to put an end to her life for or in connection with the demand of dowry. It is submitted that the petitioner has been implicated only due to his refusal to make a false statement against the in-laws of the deceased. It is also argued that the petitioner is residing at about 100 km away from the house of the deceased and doing the work of carpenter and it is not possible for him to go there and demand the dowry. It is further submitted that the wife of the petitioner along with younger sister-in-law and her husband have already been found innocent by the investigating agency against whom the similar type of allegations were levelled, which were found to be false. It is also contended that the suicide note left by the deceased could not be compared in this case, because of non-availability of admitted specimen handwriting of the deceased. It is prayed that the instant revision should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside, being illegal and arbitrary. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu, 2017 2 RCR(Cri) 1, Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, 2012 4 RCR(Cri) 377, State of Bihar and another vs. Shri P.P. Sharma and another, 1991 AIR(SC) 1260 and Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2013 1 RCR(Cri) 153.