JAIDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.9.2005, whereby the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khetri has framed the charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 306, 406, and 498 -A, I.P.C.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 18.11.2004, the complainant, Pratap Singh, lodged a report at Police Station Buhana wherein he claimed that his daughter, Savita, was married to the petitioner's son, Jitendra. Just after her marriage, the husband, the mother -in -law, the father -in -law and the brother -in -law, started torturing his daughter for dowry. He further claimed that during the marriage, he had spent a huge amount on his daughter's marriage and had given rupees one lakh to the accused persons by way of dowry. He further alleged that Jitendra was a habitual drinker who would abuse and assault his daughter after heavy drinking. Because of the ill treatment, his nephew Mohan had brought his daughter back to the paternal house. But after intervention of family relations, Savita was sent back to the matrimonial home on 9.11.2004. On 18.11.2004, a telephone call was received at his residence that Savita has been thrown into the well and has died.

(3.) MR . Anshuman Saxena, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that firstly, only general and vague allegations have been leveled againstthe present petitioner. Same set of allegations was also leveled against the mother -in -law, yet the Police did not believe the allegations. On the same set of evidence while the police has not filed a charge sheet against the mother -in -law, the Court has framed charges against the petitioner. In fact, the bald statements do not add up to offence under Section 498 -A, I.P.C. The learned Trial Court has ignored this aspect of the case and has framed the charges against the petitioner. Secondly, the deceased was married to the petitioner's son for a period of seven to eight years. During this interim period, the complainant did not complain about the alleged abuse of his daughter. Thirdly, a large number of witnesses have claimed in their statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. that Savita, the deceased, was suffering from mental disorder. In fact, the deceased jumped into the well and committed suicide not because of any abatement, caused by the petitioner, but because she was suffering from a mental disorder. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner had intentionally abetted the alleged suicide committed by the deceased. Therefore, the ingredients of offence under Section 306, I.P.C. are conspicuously missing. Hence, the charges framed by the learned Trial Court deserve to be set aside.