On investigation, police questioned various witnesses and some of the witnesses including the brother of the deceased Sarita gave statements that after marriage Sarita started demanding share in the property of her husband and also there were quarrels between them on this count. Sarita in the first information statement stated that the accused demanded dowry from her. Therefore this is a case where there were allegations against the accused that they had demanded dowry from the complainant which might have provoked Sarita to commit suicide. It is true that as pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that certain witnesses had given statement to the police that Sarita had demanded partition of the family property and stated that if her demands were not considered, she would commit suicide. The crucial question is whether the suicide of Sarita was in any way connected with the demand for dowry. That is a matter to be considered by the Court by proper appreciation of evidence and at the stage of framing charges, the High Court should not have considered the whole evidence that there were no materials for the Court to frame charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. In view of the statements given by some of the witnesses, the High Court was not justified in quashing the charges already framed by the Sessions Court and directing the Sessions Court to frame charges exclusively for the offences under Section 306 IPC. {Para 3}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 1998
Decided On: 21.09.2004
Nemichand Jain Vs. Roshanlal and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.G. Balakrishnan and Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.
1. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan in a revision filed by the accused in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1996. The Sessions Judge had framed the charges against the accused under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred the revision alleging that these offences were not made out and he was entitled to be discharged. The learned Single Judge allowed the revision petition and charges framed under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC were quashed but at the same time directed the Sessions Court to frame charges under Section 306 IPC.
2. The complainant's daughter Sarita got married to first accused Vinay @ Pappu on 4.2.1995. Sarita started staying with her husband but it seems that there were matrimonial disputes and Sarita alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. It is alleged that two months after the solemnization of the marriage, the husband Vinay @ Pappu and his parents Roshan and Kunti demanded dowry and intimidated Sarita. Sarita's sister Sapna had visited the house of the accused and she reported to her father that Sarita was not happy in the matrimonial house. The complainant received telephonic message that his daughter Sarita wanted to commit suicide as a result of harassment for dowry. The complainant then made a complaint to the police and police registered a case.
3. On investigation, police questioned various witnesses and some of the witnesses including the brother of the deceased Sarita gave statements that after marriage Sarita started demanding share in the property of her husband and also there were quarrels between them on this count. Sarita in the first information statement stated that the accused demanded dowry from her. Therefore this is a case where there were allegations against the accused that they had demanded dowry from the complainant which might have provoked Sarita to commit suicide. It is true that as pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that certain witnesses had given statement to the police that Sarita had demanded partition of the family property and stated that if her demands were not considered, she would commit suicide. The crucial question is whether the suicide of Sarita was in any way connected with the demand for dowry. That is a matter to be considered by the Court by proper appreciation of evidence and at the stage of framing charges, the High Court should not have considered the whole evidence that there were no materials for the Court to frame charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. In view of the statements given by some of the witnesses, the High Court was not justified in quashing the charges already framed by the Sessions Court and directing the Sessions Court to frame charges exclusively for the offences under Section 306 IPC.
4. We set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct the Sessions Judge to proceed with the case on the basis of the charges framed by him under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.
5. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
6. Original records be sent back to the Sessions Court immediately.
No comments:
Post a Comment