1 Imran & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.Cri. Revision Petition No.1063/2008 Date of Order : 09.02.09 HON'BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J. Mr.R.S.Choudhary for the petitioner/s. Mr.O.P.Rathi , Public Prosecutor. Mr.Sandeep Mehta for the complainant. The instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused petitioners challenging the correctness and legality of the order dated 10.09.08 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge , Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions case No.06/2008 whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges against the petitioners for the offence under section 498A and 304 B IPC. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of this revision are that complainant Mahboob Ali filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Sujagarh stating therein that the marriage of his sister Madina was solemnized on 28.01.04 with Imran. Her parents gave dowry as per the demand of the accused 2 persons and Gauna ceremony was also performed on the same day. After marriage, the accused persons further demanded Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle and started torturing her. On 12.02.06 she gave birth to a female child and the accused persons started to torture her with much cruelty saying that she has given birth to a female child. Few days later, when she came on 09.06.06 she made complaint of demand of dowry, thereafter on 20.06.06 a telephonic message was received by the parents of the deceased from her in laws' house saying that their daughter Smt.Madina has taken some poison and she is in a critical condition . By the time the brother and father of Madina reached her matrimonial house, she had already died. On the basis of the complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh sent the matter to the SHO, Police Station, Sujangarh under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. FIR No.108/06 under section 304-B and 498-A IPC was registered. On completion of investigation the police ultimately filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 3 The learned Judicial Magistrate, took cognizance against the petitioners and committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Sujangarh for trial. The learned trial court , after hearing both the parties, framed charges against the petitioners vide the impugned order dated 10.09.08. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, the present accused petitioners have preferred this revision petition. Notices of this petition were issued, record of the case was called and arguments were heard. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind as well as against the the provisions of law. Thus the order is per se illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners that Smt.Madina was suffering from Tuberculosis and treatment was going on . Thus, her death was natural. It was further fortified by the fact that during post mortem, visra was taken and that was sent for analysis and it was further contended that FSL report 4 negatived the factum of taking poison. It was also contended that a report was filed on 21.06.06 by the parents of the petitioners to the SHO , Police Station , Sujangarh and on that report police noted Mrig report No.08/06 and started enquiry in that respect. During that enquiry they also prepared a panchnama, in which father of the deceased, Lal Mohd, was also present and he also signed on panchnama . It was contended that during that panchnama proceedings, it was observed that Madina died on account of her illness. These papers were with the police but they did not file those papers along with the charge sheet. It was submitted that the learned trial Judge should have called and perused those papers at the time of framing of charge. But despite the request, learned Judge declined to consider those papers. Therefore, the order of framing charge is illegal and that should be quashed and the revision may be allowed. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant respondent No.2, refuted the contentions and submitted that at the stage of charge, as per police investigation the cause of death was found 5 unnatural and the finding was that she was subjected to cruelty on account of insufficient dowry within a span of 7 years of marriage. Therefore, the learned trial Judge rightly framed the charge under the said offences. It was further contended that at the time of framing of charge, learned court was only expected to peruse the papers submitted along with police report . At that time, court was not required to look into the defence pleas. Thus, the contention placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not tenable. It was urged that revision deserves to be dismissed and it may be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record. The police , after thorough investigation, has filed positive charge sheet against the present accused petitioners under section 498-A and 304-B IPC. Admittedly, this occurrence has been taken place within a span of 7 years of marriage. Further, I have also perused the statement recorded during investigation. There are allegations of demand of dowry just before the death. In the statement of witnesses, they have stated that 6 she was subjected to cruelty. I have also perused the post mortem report conducted by a board of doctors. They have taken visra for analysis. It is correct that report of the FSL gave negative test for any poison. But during investigation, police has also recorded the statements of doctors. They have not disclosed the definite cause of her death due to Tuberculosis. The police has also investigated the treating doctor Smt. Anupama Sharma, wh9o examined her one day before the occurrence. She has ruled out the possibility of death due to prescribed medicines. Thus, her death was not normal. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the papers prepared with regard to Mrig report should also be called and perused , are not sustainable. At the stage of charge only material submitted along with police report are relevant for consideration. Thus, the contention raised by the petitioners are not having any force. The conclusion finds support from the judgment given by the apex court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005)1 SCC, 568, in which it has been observed that at the stage of charge, court is to consider only the material produced by the prosecution. Accused cannot at that stage, invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. to seek production of any 7 document to prove his innocence. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made in this order, will not come in the way of the merit of the case and the trial court will not be influenced by it. (MANAK MOHTA), J. l.george