MANGI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 6.1.2015 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case NO. 49/2014 whereby the learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

(2.) AS per the facts of the case on 16.5.2014 the complainant Suresh Kumar, brother of the deceased Rajbala and wife of the petitioner filed a written report to the Police Station Gogamedhi alleging therein that the marriage of his sister Rajbala was solemnized 10 years ago with petitioner as per the customs and rites. After marriage, 2 children were born, but soon after the marriage, the petitioner started torturing his sister for dowry and therefore, several Panchayats were convened for compromise in which petitioner apologies to settle his sister. As per the allegation, the petitioner was demanding motor cycle and cash amount from the wife and he was regularly drinking liquor and severely beating her so as to harass his sister and due to repeated torturing and demand of dowry, the wife of the petitioner Rajbala committed suicide by strangulation and this information was given by father -in -law Balram on telephone at about 6.30 a.m. on 9.6.2014. Upon receiving such complaint, the author of FIR and his father alongwith other persons of community went on spot and they saw that his sister was handing on a tree. Upon aforesaid report filed by Suresh Kumar, brother of the deceased Rajbala, wife of the petitioner an FIR No. 116/2014 was registered and after usual investigation charge -sheet was filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the charge under Section 306 IPC has wrongly been framed against the petitioner because as per the definition of abatement under Section 107 IPC, there is no evidence on record to prove the fact that any abatement was made by the petitioner to commit suicide by his wife Rajbala, therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC may be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court towards the statements of Aakash son of the petitioner recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submits that according to the statement of Aakash, the petitioner went to the Sikarodi at about 3 -4 days ago from the date of incident and consumed liquor in the house of relatives of in -laws, therefore, the father of the deceased informed to the deceased that her husband is continuously consuming liquor there with other members, therefore, the brother -in -law of petitioner went to Sikarodi and taken back him at 16 JSN. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner the deceased made complaint to the complainant that he has insulted her before her relatives and, thereafter, committed suicide but such evidence cannot be treated to be an abatement so as to say that petitioner is guilty for offence under Section 306 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the evidence collected during investigation, there is no evidence for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC, therefore, the order for framing charge under Sections 306 and 498A IPC may be quashed. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the judgments delivered in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in : (2002) 5 SCC 371 and Swamay Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. & anr. Reported in, 1999 Cr. L.R. (SC) 141 and submits that as per the said judgments the charge framed under Section 306 IPC may be quashed.