PAWAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition has been filed Under Section 397 read with Section 401, CrPC by accused assailing order dt.04/04/07 in Sess. Case No. 1/07 (27/06) whereby Addl. Sess. Judge (Fast track) No. 3, Khetri (Jhunjhunu) framed charges Under Section 498A, 304B, 406 & 201, IPC against accused petitioners.

(2.) INITIALLY , on a report lodged on 14/11/05 at the behest of Preetam Singh S/o Bhur Singh, brother of deceased, FIR -370/05 was registered at Police Station Khetri (Jhunjhunu). Marriage of her sister took place on 02/03/99 with one of petitioners (Pavan Kumar) and out of their wedlock there are two children. Allegations made inter -alia in the report, are that since petitioners were demanding dowry and harassing the deceased, she was left by him at her parent's house on various occasions, and taken back to her matrimonial home where she died on 13/11/05. During investigation, statements were recorded of members of her parental family, particularly Surgyan Singh, Mahadev Soingh, Kalu Singh, Hanuman Prasad, Bhanwar Singh, & Pritam Singh Under Section 161, CrPC, wherein all have specifically named accused petitioners and alleged of their participation in commission of offences. The police filed challan against three accused petitioners for offences (supra) and after hearing them, charges were framed vide order dt. 04/04/07.

(3.) IT is trite that at the time of framing the charge, the truth, veracity & effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposed to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Even, at the time of framing the charge, it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an offence and involvement of the charged persons; and charge can be framed, if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime as against certainty.