BRIJ MOHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions have been filed against the order dated order dated 2.6.2011 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast track) No. 1 Jaipur in Sessions case No. 5 of 2009 whereby the trial court allowed the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioners Brij Mohan Meena, Smt. Ramdulari, Baney Singh and Rashmi (revision petition No. 782 of 2011) whereas the order has been challenged by Dharam Singh father of deceased Renu for rejecting the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. against the non -petitioners Prem Singh, Roop Singh, Brij Ballabh, and Jagmohan (revision petition No. 700 of 2011), hence they are being disposed by this common order. Brief facts of the case are that the son of the petitioner No. 1 Virendra Meena got married to one Renu Meena daughter of Dharam Singh at Arya Samaj, Rajapark, Jaipur as marriage of choice which was opposed by the family of Renu Meena, resultant to which an FIR No. 444/2004 Police Station Mantown Sawai Madhopur was registered for abduction. Meanwhile parents of Renu Meena who had been legally wedded wife of Virendra Meena forcibly abducted by the aid of Police personnel belonging to Sanganer Police Station, resultant to which habeas corpus petition was submitted before this Court wherein girl was brought by the parents who on oath stated that she was willfully resided with her husband and wants to do so in future. This court after granting police protection sent Renu Meena with Virendra Meena. The couple resided initially at C -7 PNB flats Malviya Nagar, Jaipur thereafter shifted to the rented place Plot No. 70 CBI Colony Arvind Nagar, Jaipur. It was alleged in the petition that on 13.9.2008 Renu Meena died a natural death since she was suffering from low B.P. and other ailments but the family members of Renu Meena who were keeping enmity since their marriage lodged an FIR which was investigated under Sec. 304B IPC. It has been alleged in the petition that under the influence of complainant the police filed challan against Virendra Meena and subsequently charge was leveled and trial is undergoing. The other family members of Virendra Meena those who are petitioners herein in revision petition No. 782 of 2011 the investigation was kept pending under Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The petitioners in criminal revision petition No. 782 of 2011 being afraid of Renu Meena's father who enjoys high position due to he being Senior District Judge, requested higher police officials to get the investigation conducted by CID CB in written their grievance was redressed and investigation was conducted by CID CB against the petitioners, whose investigation was pending under Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C. After comprehensive investigation, the police submitted negative final report and closed the file. It is alleged in the petition that after submission of final report against the petitioners, in their statements the prosecution witnesses Pradeep (PW. 1), Dharam Singh Meena (PW. 10), Smt. Kiran, (PW. 11) and Govind (PW. 12), they categorically tried to incorporate the petitioners even when no iota of evidence was available on the record to connect the petitioners with the present crime. Application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 14.12.2010 reiterating therein that the petitioners were involved in the crime and used to harass deceased Renu Meena. Reply to the application was filed by Virendra Meena since he was facing trial and incorporation of other accused would not only shatter his defence but would also delay the trial unwarrantably. It was stated in the reply that the application was without any substance and no iota of evidence by way of imagination whatsoever can connect the petitioners with the present crime. The trial court decided the application and cognizance was taken against the petitioners in revision petition No. 782 of 2011 and rejected the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. against the non -petitioners 1 to 5 in the revision petition No. 700 of 2011. These two revision petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 2.6.2011 of the trial court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners in revision petition No. 782 of 2011 has argued that the trial court even after specific challenge to the authentication of the application filed under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. opted to keep mum on the issue and not written a single word as to why such application has been entertained. In the application it has been written complainant and father of the deceased Dharam Singh Meena has filed application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. through Public Prosecutor. It is argued that neither Dharam Singh is complainant nor such application can be filed through the Public Prosecutor. The procedure adopted is totally foreign to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and it was prayed that this court may interfere in the matter for quashing the order of the trial court. It has been further argued that in the statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. there has not been a mention of single instance which would constitute the offence under Sec. 304B IPC. In the statements before the court the parents of deceased Renu also does not disclose any specific or direct evidence so as to connect the present petitioners with the present crime. The CID CB conducted investigation and submitted their negative report along with the statements and documents which would go to show that there is no culpability available to connect the petitioners even remotest with the present crime. The trial court has placed reliance upon the statements of PW. 1, PW. 10, PW. 11 and PW. 12 who are closed relatives of deceased Renu whereas their statements in totality have not been considered. The witnesses failed to mention any specific instance or to develop the case so as to fall in the primary requirement of offence under Sec. 304B IPC. The learned counsel has argued that soon before harassment is totally missing in the statements or in the material placed before the trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Sarabjit Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another : (2009) 16 SCC 46, Brindaban Das and others vs. State of West Bengal : (2009) 3 SCC 329 : 2009 (2) RLW 1727 (SC), Mohd. Shafi vs. Mohad. Rafiq and another ( : 2007 Cri.L.J. 3198 (1) and Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. : (2007) 12 SCC Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner also placed for my perusal certain documents related to the present matter.

(3.) Mr. Bin Singh, Sr. Advocate appearing for Mr. Dharam Singh, petitioner in Revision Petition No. 700 of 2011 has argued that the trial court has failed to apply the mind judiciously to the material available on record. The trial court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. It was argued that the trial court has to see only whether there is a prima facie case made out against the accused or not. The trial court has to see only the evidence against the accused persons and cannot go into the merits and demerits of the case and about the probability of the defence at this stage. The trial court has also erred in not taking into consideration the statements of the petitioner Dharam Singh, his wife Smt. Kiran Devi, Brijlal Meena and Govind Meena who have specifically stated that the in -laws of Smt. Renu including the present non -petitioners who are near relatives of Virendra and Family, have actively helped in harassing, humiliating and torturing Smt. Renu for dowry and in the last murdered her. There is cogent and reliable evidence against the accused non -petitioners. Entire evidence and the material available on record it is clear that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and has also failed to apply its mind to the well settled principles laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that at the stage of Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. the court has to look into the entire evidence recorded by the investigating agency as well as the evidence produced before the court for judging the truthfulness of the evidence of prosecution witnesses but in the instant case the trial court has ignored this principle and failed to appreciate the evidence. He has placed reliance on Ram Pal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ( : 2010 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC 765)) and Jafar Mohd. Shah vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2007 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 790).