DINESH SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three petitioners before me have challenged the order dated 9.1.89 of the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which he has framed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 302, 498A read with Sec. 120B IPC.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the deceased Kailash Kanwar was murdered, or that there was any conspiracy between the petitioners to do away with him. The post mortem report and other document have been read extensively in order to contain that the petitioners could not be held responsible for the death of the deceased as she had committed suicide on her own free will. According to him there is no direct or circumstantial evidence in support of the prosecution theory and when there is no material worth the name, the petitioners should be discharged.

(3.) The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the deceased had written letters a couple of months prior to her death in order to show that she was unhappy and was not allowed to meet the persons coming from her village or her parents' house. It has also been contended that blood stained and half burnt clothes of the petitioner No. 1, husband of the deceased were also found at the place where the deceased Kailash Kanwar was found dead with burns. Kerosene can was also found near that place.