MALLI DEVI @ SAKUNTALA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition, filed by the accused, challenge has been made to the order dated 25.7.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh District Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 6/2012, whereby he has framed charges against him for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC and in the alternative under Section 302, IPC The instant criminal case was initiated on a report lodged by one Hitrendra Pradhan on 28.10.2011 at Police Station Tahla, District Alwar in relation to the death of his sister. The report was registered as FIR No. 139/2011 under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC. Thereupon, the investigation commenced and after conclusion of the same challan came to be filed by the police in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B/302, IPC. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh for trial where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 6/2012. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, by his order dated 25.7.2012 (Annexure-2) framed charges against the petitioners for the offences aforementioned. Being aggrieved of the order of framing charge, the petitioners have preferred the instant revision petition before this Court.

(2.) It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order of framing charge is illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. Further, he has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in; framing the charge against the petitioners as there is no evidence on record in that respect. It is also submitted that neither the offence of demand of dowry, dowry death or that of murder is made out against the accused because the deceased had left behind a suicide note from which it is revealed that she was instigated and abated by some person who had met her at the bus stand. Learned Counsel has submitted that the suicide note had been sent to the FSL and as per its opinion the handwriting tallies with the admitted handwriting of the deceased. But, the learned Trial Court has not considered the said material evidence on record which totally changes the colour of the case and belies the prosecution case on the face of it. According to him, in such circumstances, there is no question of any offence of murder having been made out and in view of the fact that there is no evidence of demand of dowry, no presumption with regard to the commission of dowry death is also made out in the present case.

(3.) On the other hand, learned public prosecutor has supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 25.7.2012. He has submitted that the deceased had died unnatural death. Further, he has submitted that the death had occurred within seven years of marriage. It has also been submitted by the learned public prosecutor that the order of framing charge passed by the learned Court below does not suffer from any infirmity and all other questions raised in regard to the present case are to be considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage.