SITA RAM PAREEK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter), the petitioner has challenged the order D/- 6-4-2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 05/2005 arising out of FIR No. 116/2004, Police Station, Chitawa whereby the trial Court framed the charges against non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306, I. P. C. instead 498-A and 304-B, I. P. C. Aggrieved by order impugned, whereby the trial Court declined to frame the charge for the offence under Section 304-B, I. P. C., the petitioner-complainant has filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the order impugned and challan papers.

(3.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on 12-10-2004, the petitioner-complainant lodged a first information report No. 116/ 2004 at Police Station, Chitawa, Dist. Nagaur against non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5, inter alia, alleging therein that his daughter Maya married to non-petitioner No. 3 Vinod Kumar son of non-petitioner No. 2 Gyanchand on 9-3-2003. It was further al- leged that according to his capacity, he has given dowry to his daughter, however, his daughter's in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and, therefore, his daughter Maya was harassed by her husband Vinod Kumar, father-in-law Gyan Chand, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law etc. Not only this, for demand of dowry, she was harassed to the extent of not providing meals to her. In the month of July, 2004, non-petitioner No. 3, husband of Maya demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which was paid through his elder daughter Urmila residing at Delhi. It was further stated that on 12-10-2004 at 7.45 a.m., he received a telephonic message from his nephew that Maya has expired, though Maya's in-laws did not inform him of the occurrence; on reaching at her in-laws house, it was noticed that she has been killed. On this report, police ensued investigation. The statements of prosecution witnesses under section 161 of the Code were recorded; autopsy on deceased Maya was conducted. Post mortem was conducted by Medical Board comprising three Doctors, who opined that the cause of death of Maya is asphyxia as a result of hanging. After usual Investigation, police filed the challan against non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 304-B, I. P. C. Case was committed to the trial Court. The trial Court, by order impugned, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to presume that there was any criminal breach of trust and therefore, discharged non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 for the offence under Section 406, I. P. C., noticed that there is no proof regarding cruel treatment and framed charges against them for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306, I. P. C.