MANBHAR DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.07.2009 passed by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has framed charges for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC against them. Mr. Raunak Singhvi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that according to the statement of the father given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and according to his testimony, given before the Court, he has not uttered a word about any cruelty being meeted out to the deceased by the petitioners. Moreover, the only allegation levelled against the present petitioners is that they used to insult the deceased by telling her that she should go and jump in a well. However, the learned counsel has not been able to produce the testimony of the father.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the charge-sheet. A bare perusal of the father's statement, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., clearly reveals that he had claimed that Sapana was maltreated by the petitioners. He further stated that when he went to Sapana's in-laws' house, he found Sapana hanging from a noose. Furthermore, she had died within seven years of her marriage. Therefore, prima facie, a strong case does exist against the petitioners for the trial court to have framed the charge. Moreover, once the evidence has started trickling in, it is now too late in the day to challenge the charge order. Further, in case, there is no evidence against the present accused-petitioners, they are bound to be acquitted by the trial court. Hence, there is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the impugned order.