Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 705 (RAJ)

Keshar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-01

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 CrPC, the accused petitioners have challenged the order dated 06.01.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali Camp Sumerpura (for short “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2001 whereby the trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the order impugned and challan papers. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the case as set up by the prosecution is that the marriage of deceased was solemnized with Petitioner No. 1 Keshar Singh more than eight years ago from the date of occurrence and therefore, offence under Section 304-B, IPC is not made out against the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has confined his arguments and challenged the order impugned to the extent framing charge under Section 304-B IPC, however, does not challenge the charge under Section 498-A, IPC. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor failed to show any evidence that death of Lad Kanwar was caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. 5. Section 304-B, IPC deals with the dowry death. Sub-section (1) of Section 304-B, IPC provides that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. 6. Thus, the essential ingredients to construe the offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC is that death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and shown that woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. 7. 7. On careful scrutiny of the challan papers it appears that Moti Singh, brother of the deceased and author of the FIR and Heer Singh other brother of the deceased have stated that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with petitioner Kesar Singh about six years ago. However, mother of the deceased Smt. Jamna Kanwar in her statement under Section 161, CrPC stated that her daughter Ladu Kanwar’s marriage was solemnized about 7-8 years ago. There is also a document available on record which relates to the marriage of deceased with petitioner Kesar Singh on 09.05.1997 Samwat 2054 Vaishak Sukla 3, and marriage of Pawan Kanwar with witness Heer Singh on 22.05.1997. It has also come in the statement of witnesses more particularly in the statement of Smt. Jamna Kanwar, mother of the deceased that the marriage of deceased with Kesar Singh and marriage of Pawan Kanwar with her son Heer Singh was in exchange (Aata-Sata) and was solemnized in the same year. One Ramesh Kumar S/o Shankar Lal, made a statement that he is Bahman and engaged in solemnizing the marriages. He stated that the marriage of Pawan Kanwar daughter of Khimsingh was got solemnized by him on 22.05.1997 and he was the person who performed the said marriage ceremony. According to him, marriage of Kesar Singh with the deceased took place about 8 and half years ago. The other witnesses namely Vijay Singh, Pepsingh, Harisingh, Smt. Ladkanwar and Devisingh stated that the marriage of deceased was solemnized with the Petitioner No. 1 about eight years ago. Thus, keeping in view the statement of mother of the deceased Smt. Jamna Kanwar and other witnesses noticed above including Ramesh Kumar S/o Shankar Lal who performed the marriage ceremony, it is clear that the marriage of Kesar Singh was solemnized with the deceased about 8 and half years ago, at any rate not within seven years from the date of her death. 8. In the circumstances therefore, in my view, the very essential ingredients for the offence under Section 304-B, IPC are prima-facie not established and, therefore, there is no ground to presume that the petitioners committed the offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC. However, there is evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners and abetted the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, prima-facie offence punishable under Section 306, IPC is made out against the petitioners. However, there is evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners and abetted the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, prima-facie offence punishable under Section 306, IPC is made out against the petitioners. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 06.01.2006 to the extent framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 304-B, IPC is set aside and instead the charges for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC are made out. Ad-interim stay order dated 30.01.2006 is vacated and stay petition stands disposed of .