SHAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Sham Sunder has assailed the framing of charge against him by Sessions Judge, Una, dated 17-10-1992 for offences under Sub-Sections 302/304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that the accused had married the deceased (Seema) on 16/10/1988. For sometime, the relations between the couple were good. However, they started becoming strained on account of the harassment of the deceased by the petitioner and his demands for dowry. On 25-7-1990, at about 8.45 p.m., the accused set her on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her while she was in the kitchen of the house. A doctor was called, on whose advice the deceased was shifted to District Hospital, Una, and then to P.G.I. Chandigarh within hours, where she died on 27-7-1990 at 8.45 p.m. During the course of investigation, the police examined certain witnesses, collected certain documents and other evidence relating to this case and then finally, on completion of investigation, the matter was brought before the trial court for the prosecution of the accused.

(3.) The sole question in this case is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case and on the material collected by the police, the involvement of the petitioner can be established. In order to examine this question, the learned counsel for the parties took me through the case file and made detailed submissions for and against the question of involvement of the accused in this case. Shri N. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contends that the trial court has framed the charge against the accused erroneously, although it could not be framed on the basis of the evidence intended to be adduced in the case by the prosecution. The liberty of the accused is seriously threatened in case this kind of lame prosecution is allowed to continue. Now, I turn to the cases on which great reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.