MAHENDRA RINWA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-complainant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P.C., 1973 to assail order dated 21st of November 2017, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaitaran (Pali) (for short, 'learned Court below'). By the order impugned, learned Court below has rejected application of the petitioner under Section 319 Cr. P.C., 1973 in Sessions Case No. 07/16, arising out of FIR No. 492/2015, registered at Police Station, Jaitaran, District Pali.

(2.) The facts, apposite for the purpose of this revision petition, are that petitioner-complainant submitted aforementioned First Information Report against Omprakash, Ms. Babu Devi and second respondent Teja Ram, inter-alia, alleging therein that they are husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of his daughter Ms. Sushila, who died at matrimonial home on 7th of December 2015 under mysterious circumstances. The FIR further unfurled that husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased Sushila subjected her to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death, and death has occasioned otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of matrimony. Police after investigation, charge-sheeted husband of Ms. Susila, Omprakash and her mother-in-law Ms. Babu Devi for offence under z, while dropping the name of second respondent. In due course of time, the case was committed to learned Court below and charges were framed for the aforesaid offences against the accused persons. After recording statements of prosecution witnesses including father, mother and brother of the deceased, petitioner laid an application under Section 319 Cr. P.C., 1973 to proceed against second respondent for the aforesaid offences, which he appears to have committed and put him to trial together with other accused persons. The learned Court below, after examining the evidence and other materials available on record, declined prayer of the petitioner and that prompted him to approach this Court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for second respondent and perused the materials available on record.