AJAY KUMAR AND ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 9.7.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapurcity by which the accused petitioners have been charged for offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 I.P.C. The necessary facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that one Suresh Chand Sonwal lodged a report at the Police Station, Gangapurcity at 8.40 A.M. on 4.3.2007 that his sister Sunita was married to the petitioner Ajay Kumar around four years back. The petitioner Ajay Kumar had illicit relations with one Ritu. The petitioner Ajay Kumar was continuously harassing his sister to fulfill his illegal demand of dowry. On the occasion of marriage of his younger brother at Jaipur on 3.2.2007, the petitioner Ajay Kumar made a demand of Rs. 50,000/-. On 3.3.2007 when his younger brother Sandeep Sonwal talked to Sunita on mobile phone No. 9414823738 Sunita told him that the petitioners were harassing her for money and they were threatening and beating her and she asked for help. Thereafter they got the information that her sister Sunita and her son had been murdered. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of A.C.J.M. Gangapur City, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. The learned Additional Session Judge ordered for framing of charges against the petitioners under sections 498A, 304B and 302 IPC.

(2.) Aggrieved by this order, the accused petitioners have filed this revision petition.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence even to prima-facie establish that the deceased Sunita was murdered by the petitioners. It has been further contended that in the suicide note left by the deceased Sunita there is absolutely no mention of any harassment for demand of dowry and, therefore, this allegation is a mere concoction. He has said that this is a clear case of suicide and the charges framed against the accused petitioners are groundless. He has placed reliance on , : 1997 (1) Crimes 275 (SC), AIR 1977 SC 2018, 2004(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1648 and 1999(1) RLW 570.