PRABHUDAYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the death of one Shanti Devi, her husband, Inder Kumar her sister-in-law Mst. Hulsi and her brother-in-law Mahesh Kumar was challenged for offences under Sections 302, 498A, 201 and 120 IPC. After committal of the case before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, arguments were heard for finding out as to what offences were made out and for which offences the accused-persons should be charged. After considering the evidence and specially the dying-declaration of Mst. Shanti Devi, Indra Kumar were discharged for all the offences Mst. Hulsi was charged for offences under Sec. 302 498-A IPC. while Mahesh Kumar was charged for the offences under section 201 IPC. Both of them were discharged for the other offences

(2.) The State has not preferred any revision against this order but the complainant has moved an application under Sec. 482 Cr P.C praying that the accused Mahesh Kumar should be discharged for the offences under Sec. 301, 498 A, and 120 B Penal Code against all the accused persons Another miscellaneous petition has been preferred by Mahesh Kumar, challenging the framing of charge for the offence under section 201 IPC. Both there petition are being disposed together.

(3.) While hearing the petition of the complainant it was ordered to issue show cause notices to non petitioner Mahesh Kumar as to why he should not be charged for the offences under Sec. 201 IPC. Later on it has ben found that Mahes Kumar has already been charged for the offence under Sec. 201 Penal Code and challenge the same. Inspite of the notice confined to charging for the offences under Sec. 201 Penal Code only, learned counsel for the complainant has argued in detail in order to frame charge against the accused Mahesh Kumar, for offences under Sections 302 and 498 IPC. His contention is that under Sec. "04 B Penal Code and Sec. 113B Evidence Act, there is a presumption about the causing of death by husband or any other relative when there is evidence to show that there was demand for dowry and the wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relative in this connection. According to him in the present case there is evidence of the complainant Prabhu Dayal, which is to the effect that Shanti Devi was subjected to harassment on account of bringing inadequate dowry and in view of this evidence, Mahesh Kumar should be charged for all the offences for which a challan was put up He has placed reliance on RLW 1987, 583, AIR 1977 SC 2018 and 1986 (1), 452. On basis of these decisions, it is contended that strong suspicion founded upon material can lead the trial court to frame the charge and at the time of framing of charge, it is necessary that the evidence should be in the nature of proof, sufficient for basing a conviction