1 S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.543/2007 Jetudi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan DATE OF ORDER : 23rd MARCH, 2009 HON`BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J. Mr. R.S. Choudhary, for the petitioners. Mr. Vishnu Kachhwaha, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Parwat Singh for Mr. N.S. Solanki, for respondent No.2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the counsel for the complainant and perused the record as well as the impugned order of framing of charges. By way of this revision, the petitioners have assailed the validity and correctness of order dated 24.5.2007 passed by the learned trial court whereby the learned trial Judge has framed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. The facts of the case in brief are that on 21.2.2005 one Krishna Ram father of the deceased filed a complaint before the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, 2 Deedwana, District Nagore alleging inter alia that his daughters Bhanwari aged 13-14 years and Sanju aged 10 years respectively were married to Sarwan Ram and Nanu Ram both sons of Hema Ram about 6-7 years ago. He further alleged that after one year of marriage, Bhanwari started living at her inlaws' house, however, from the very beginning she was harassed and mal-treated by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law for bringing insufficient dowry. She remained at parental house and thereafter an assurance was given by the inlaws' side that they would behave with her properly, she was sent back to her inlaws'. It was alleged that on 5.2.2005 at 8.00 AM the accused persons lit fire to Bhanwari by pouring kerosene upon her, due to that later on , on 09.02.05 she succumbed to the burn injuries. The said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C., whereupon a case vide FIR No.29/05 was registered at P.S. Khunkhuna, District Nagore for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and the investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the present petitioners Hema Ram (father-inlaw), Jetudi (mother-inlaw) Smt. Rekha 3 ( sister-in law), and Nanu Ram (brother -in-law) under sections 498-A and 304-B/34 IPC and the case was committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana. At the time of framing of charge, after hearing both the sides, the learned trial Judge framed charge against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C., hence this revision. Notice was given to respondents, record of the case was called and arguments were heard. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the accused petitioners submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly considered and appreciated the material available on record and the contentions raised before him at the stage of framing of charge. Therefore, the order of the charge is liable to be quashed. It was contended that the concerned witnesses have not stated facts with regard to demand of dowry . In fact, that was not the issue. It was further submitted that from the perusal of the evidence, it was not established that soon before the death she was harassed or subjected to cruelty. That is the basic ingredient to frame charge under section 304-B IPC but that is lacking . 4 Learned trial court did not consider these aspects of the matter. Hence, the charge under section 304-B is not maintainable. It was submitted that from the material available on record , it also revealed that the statement of deceased Bhanwari was recorded by police on 05.02.05 in the presence of doctor and in that statement she has clearly stated that while she was preparing tea, her clothes caught fire , as a result of that she got burnt. Thus ,on the statement of the deceased no case is made out against the petitioners under section 498-A or 304-B IPC. But the learned trial Judge has not considered this important material, while passing the said impugned order. It was submitted by the learned counsel that even at the stage of charge under section 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. ,minute analysis of facts, were not required but it was required to see that prima facie there is sufficient material to proceed with the case. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, also cited judgments given in Dilawar Bali Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra [2002 Cr.L.r. (SC) 116], Mangaram vs. State of Rajasthan [1995 Cr.L.R. 9aj.) 199 ], Mishriya & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan [1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 542] and 5 Bhagwan Sahai vs. Raju @ Rajendra Kumar & Ors. [1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 806]. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, a prayer was made to allow the revision petition and to quash the order of charge and accused petitioner be discharged from the charge. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2, refuted the contentions and supported the impugned order. Learned counsel for complainant respondent No.2, further submitted that during investigation the witnesses have been examined by the police and the witnesses in their statement have categorically stated that there was a demand of dowry. He drew my attention towards the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the father of the deceased, Krishna Ram, as well as her mother and other relevant witnesses. Learned counsel further submitted that at the state of charge minute analysis of facts was not necessary but the learned court has applied its mind and on the basis of material available on record has framed the 6 charge. It was further submitted that the incident took place on 05.02.05 in the inlaws' house, thereafter, she was shifted to hospital but at that time she was surrounded by the members of in-laws' family. The police have not correctly recorded her statement. Thus, that statement is of no use. On the contrary, it reveals that after this occurrence she died on 09.02.05. During that period she had stated the real thing to her mother as well as the other family members. Further , the witnesses have stated that soon before death she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the present petitioner. Thus, no interference is needed in the order of charge and prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the impugned order as well as the record of the case. The present case has been initiated on the complaint made by the father of the deceased which was sent for investigation under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. From the perusal of record, it reveals that the deceased was married to Sravan Kumar, who is serving in Indian Army. It is further stated in the complaint that she was harassed and maltreated by the inlaws for 7 insufficient dowry and because of that she remained at her parental house and thereafter, on the intervention of non- petitioner she was again sent to her inlaws' house on 01.02.05. It is also narrated in the statements that on 04.02.05 the mother in-law of the deceased refused to send deceased Bhanwari to her parental house. On the next day , on 05.02.05 the incident had occurred. It has been mentioned in the complaint that when she was admitted in the hospital and her mother visited her at that time she narrated the whole story in which it has been stated that she was harassed and kerosene oil was poured and she was set on fire by the inlaws. The same thing mother of the deceased has stated in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Other witnesses have also stated the allegation of demand of dowry and due to non- fulfilment of dowry she was subjected to harassment and cruelty. With regard to the specific facts of incident there are allegations that the mother in-law and father in law caught her hands and sister in law poured kerosene oil and lit the fire. From the perusal of the record, it corroborates to this extent that her death was caused due to excessive burning the incident has taken place within a period of seven years from 8 marriage. Thus, at the stage of charge , detailed analysis of fact was not required. The learned lower court, after applying its mind, has framed the charges. The other contentions raised by the petitioner's side that police recorded her statement and made enquiry, but the police itself has filed charge sheet after investigation against the present petitioners. I have also considered the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the case of Dilawar Bali Kurane ( supra), the allegation was of demand of Rs.400/- to increase the mark in the examination report but FIR of that incident was lodged after 7 days and the statement was recorded after ten months. In that condition it was found that no prima facie case exist to frame charge. In the case of Mangaram (supra), the allegation against the petitioner was that he was involved in a case under section 302/34 IPC, but from the statements of witnesses, there was no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence . In the case of Mishriya & Ors. (supra) and in the case of Bhagwan Sahai 9 (supra) there were no material to infer that soon before the death on account of demand of dowry, the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty. But as discussed above, there are allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty. In this position , the judgments do not help the contentions of the petitioners. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order . The revision petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (MANAK MOHTA) J. l.george