Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 966 (RAJ)

Suman v. State of Rajasthan

2007-05-08

K.S.RATHORE

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.12.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 60/2005 (126/99) arising out of FIR No. 500/1999 registered at Police Station Kotputli, District Jaipur for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307 and 114/120-B IPC, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dated 06.10.2005 has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Smt. Suman was tortured by her husband and relatives since marriage and suffered cruelty and there was allegations for demand of dowry. It was also alleged that the husband and the relatives along with Chameli Devi poured kerosene oil on the body of the complainant and put fire and on that count major part of the body was burnt. She received burns on the face, front of the neck, upper extremities, front of the chest, lateral affects of the chest wall, front of the abdomen and at various places of the body. She remained in hospital for continuous months together. On the said 'Parcha- Bayan' a case was registered against the accused under Sections 498-A, 307 and 114/120-B IPC at Police Station Kotputli, District Jaipur. In the evidence recorded allegations are alleged against Chameli Devi and it was direct involvement of Chameli Devi, therefore, the complainant-petitioner moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the same has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that Chameli Devi's marriage took place 20 years back prior to marriage of complainant-petitioner. It is further submitted that Chameli Devi was not present at the time of the incident as her in-laws are residing at Jaipur. The Court below also considered Ex.P10 and Ex.P14 and as per Ex.P10 and Ex.P14, no role of Chameli Devi has been observed by the Court below, therefore, the application of the petitioner moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the statement of the complainant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and before the Court. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has stated as under:- " esjh uun pesyh] lkl vaxwjh] llqj izgykn dgrs Fks fd rw 'kknh esa D;k ykbZ gSA rsjs ekWa cki us 'kknh esa D;k fn;k gSA " 4. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has stated as under:- " esjh uun pesyh] lkl vaxwjh] llqj izgykn dgrs Fks fd rw 'kknh esa D;k ykbZ gSA rsjs ekWa cki us 'kknh esa D;k fn;k gSA " 4. Further in her statement recorded under 161 Cr.P.C. petitioner Smt. Suman has stated as under:- --------mlds ckn esjs yM+dk gqvk ml le; Hkh esjh lkl rFkk uun pesyh nsoh] tsBkuh vk'kk rFkk eqUuh us eq>s ijs'kku fd;k vkSj eq>s Bhd <+ax ls [kkuk rd ugha fn;k------------ 5. She further deposed in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as under:- ---------vkt ls djhc rhu pkj eghus igys dh ckr gS fd esjh lkl vaxwjh] uun pesyh] tsBkuh eqUuh rFkk vk'kk us feydj esjs mij feV~Vh dk rsy Mky fn;k ftlls esjs diM+s rsy ls Hkhx x;s Fks exj esjs frYyh ugha yxkbZ Fkh eq>s ;g yksx dkQh ijs'kku djrs Fks------------- 6. In her statement before the Court PW3 Smt. Suman has stated as under:- dejs ls eSa ckgj vkbZ rks cPpksa ds fy, fVfQu rS;kj djus vkbZ rks esjh lkl] llqj] tsBkuh vk'kk o eqUuh o uun o ifr us eq>s idM+ fy;k tcjnLrh idM+ fy;kA fxj/kkjh o uoy fd'kksj feV~Vh dh rsy dh cksry ysdj vk;s o esjs ifr dks idM+kbZ o dgk fd bl ij Mky ns o ihNk NqM+k ns rsjh nwljh 'kknh djok nsaxsA bldk cki rks dqN nsus okyk ugha gSA esjs ifr us esjs ij feV~Vh dk rsy Mky fn;kA esjs llqj ds gkFk esa ekfpl Fkh] mlus ekfpl esjs ifr dks ns nh o dgk fd fryh yxk rc esjs ifr us fryh yxk nh----------- 7. It is further stated by the petitioner Smt. Suman in her statement before the Court as under:- --------esjh uun pesyh o tsBkuh eqUuh eq>s okfil vanj ys tkus dh dksf'k'k djus yxhA eSa tksj ls jksbZ fd ;s yksx eq>s tku ls ekj nsaxs esjs ikik dks VsfyQksu djks----------------- Per contra learned counsel Mr. It is further stated by the petitioner Smt. Suman in her statement before the Court as under:- --------esjh uun pesyh o tsBkuh eqUuh eq>s okfil vanj ys tkus dh dksf'k'k djus yxhA eSa tksj ls jksbZ fd ;s yksx eq>s tku ls ekj nsaxs esjs ikik dks VsfyQksu djks----------------- Per contra learned counsel Mr. Biri Singh appearing for the respondent Smt. Chameli Devi submits that she was not present at the time of incident and the only allegation alleged in the evidence recorded under Sections 161, 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement before the Court is that merely because the complainant stated that Chameli Devi was also instigating her husband and other relatives, no offence is made out and, therefore, the application of the petitioner moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has rightly been rejected by the Court below. 8. To decide whether any involvement of Smt. Chameli Devi is there or not, it is necessary to carefully examine the statement of PW4 Madanlal, father of petitioner Smt. Suman, who has stated as under:- -----------blds Ms<+ efgus ckn lR;kukjk;.k esjh cPph dks ?kj ysdj vk;k rks esjh csVh us crk;k fd izgykn] lR;ukjk;.k] uoy] vk'kk] eqUuh] pesyh] lHkh eqfYteku ds gkFk esa tks vkrk gS mlh ls ekjrs gSa------- 9. PW4 Madan Lal in his statement further stated as under:- fnukad 22-7-99 dks lqcg lkr cts ds djhc esjh csVh lqeu dks dsjkslhu rsy ls tyk fn;kA uoy] fxj/kkuh rsy dh cksry ysdj vk;s] pesyh] vaxwjh] vk'kk us lqeu dks idM+ fy;kA fQj fxj/kkjh uoy us lR;kukjk;.k dks cksyk fd bl ij rsy Mkydj rsjk ihNk NqM+k ysA izgykn ds gkFk esa ekfpl Fkh] lR;ukjk;.k us lequ ij dsjksflu Mkyk vkSj lqeu dks vkx yxk nh---------------- 10. All these statements reveal the involvement of Smt. Chameli Devi. It is also not disputed that there are as many as 54 witnesses and the evidence of only 7 witnesses are recorded by the trial Court and as per the statements of the complainant and Madan Lal, the statements recorded under Sections 161, 164 Cr.P.C., involvement of Chameli Devi is reiterated by the witnesses. 11. Upon careful perusal of the impugned order dated 14.12.2005 as well as the statements recorded, prima-facie involvement of respondent Smt. Chameli Devi is made out though offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out against Smt. Chameli Devi. 11. Upon careful perusal of the impugned order dated 14.12.2005 as well as the statements recorded, prima-facie involvement of respondent Smt. Chameli Devi is made out though offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out against Smt. Chameli Devi. In such circumstances, rejection of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is per se contrary to the record and the statements and, therefore, the impugned order dated 14.12.2005 deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 12. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.12.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur is hereby quashed and set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below for fresh adjudication on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in accordance with the provision of law and as per the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.The revision petition stands allowed as indicated herein above.Revision allowed as above. *******