Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2089 (RAJ)

Suresh Mahandiratta v. State of Rajasthan

2007-10-29

G.S.SARRAF

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition of the complainant under Section 397 read with Section 401 IPC (sic. Cr.P.C.) is directed against the order dated 9.5.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar in sessions case No. 34/2007 whereby the application filed by the complainant petitioner to frame charge under Section 304B IPC has been dismissed and the accused respondent Ramesh Chand has been discharged of the offence under Section 304B IPC. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this criminal revision petition are that the complainant petitioner submitted a report before SHO Mahila Thana, Alwar at the General Hospital, Alwar at 3.15 p.m. on 14.12.2006 wherein it was stated that the marriage of his daughter Reena was solemnized with the accused respondent Ramesh Chand on 17.2.2005. After the marriage Reena was subjected to harassment in connection with demand of dowry and on 14.12.2006 the accused respondent after pouring kerosene on Reena set her on fire. On the basis of this report a case (FIR No. 101/06) was registered under Sections 498A and 307 IPC by Mahila Thana, Alwar. Reena died at 1.45 p.m. on 19.12.2006. After necessary investigation the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused respondent under Sections 498A, 306 IPC before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 4, Alwar who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Alwar from where the case was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar. Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar framed charges against the accused respondent under Sections 498A, 306 IPC. Thereafter the police submitted a supplementary charge sheet against the accused respondent under sections 498A, 304B IPC and this charge sheet was also sent to the trial court. The complainant then filed an application in the trial court with the prayer that charge under Section 304B IPC be framed against the accused respondent. Learned trial court by the impugned order dismissed the above application of the complainant petitioner and discharged the accused respondent from the offence under Section 304B IPC. Aggrieved by this order the complainant petitioner has filed this revision petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 4. Dying declaration of Reena was recorded on 14.12.2006 by Judicial Magistrate Fast Class No. 3, Alwar which runs as under: HINDI MATTER 495298 5. Aggrieved by this order the complainant petitioner has filed this revision petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 4. Dying declaration of Reena was recorded on 14.12.2006 by Judicial Magistrate Fast Class No. 3, Alwar which runs as under: HINDI MATTER 495298 5. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Reena has stated : HINDI MATTER 6. Suresh Kumar is the father, Laxmi Rani is the mother and Deepak Kumar is the brother of the deceased Reena and all of them in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated that the accused respondent subjected the deceased to harassment in connection with demand of dowry. 7. The essential components of Section 304B IPC are : (a) the death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage; (c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband; (d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry: and (e) the deceased should have been subjected to such cruelty or harassment soon before her death. 8. As and when the aforesaid components are established a presumption of dowry death shall be drawn against the accused under Section 1138 of the Evidence Act. 9. No doubt, Section 306 IPC read with section 113A of the Evidence Act is wide enough to take care of an offence under Section 304-B also but the latter is made a more serious offence by providing a much higher sentence and also by imposing a minimum period of imprisonment as the sentence. In other words, if death occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of the marriage as a sequel to the cruelty or harassment inflicted on a woman with demand of dowry, soon before her death, Parliament intended such a case to be treated as a very serious offence punishable even up to imprisonment for life in appropriate cases. It is for the said purpose that such cases are separated from the general category provided under Section 306 IPC read with Section 113A of the Evidence Act and made a separate offence. It is for the said purpose that such cases are separated from the general category provided under Section 306 IPC read with Section 113A of the Evidence Act and made a separate offence. If the dowry related death is a case of suicide it would also fall within the purview of Section 304B IPC because suicide is one of the modes of death falling within the ambit of Section 304B IPC as it is a death otherwise than under normal circumstances. I am supported by (2001) 8 SCC 633 , (2000) 5 SCC 207 and (1991) 1 SCC 371 . 10. After perusing the dying declaration of the deceased Reena and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. I am of the opinion that in this case there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused respondent under Section 304B IPC. 11. For the reasons stated above I set aside the impugned order and direct that appropriate charge/charges will be framed against the accused respondent and the trial court shall proceed further in accordance with law. 12. Record of the case be sent back to the trial court immediately.Revision Allowed. *******