Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1543 (ALL)

Ram Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of U. P.

2010-05-11

SYED NAZIM HUSAIN ZAIDI

body2010
Hon'ble S.N.H. Zaidi, J.:- This is a revision against the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 1162/2008 State Vs. Ram Kumar Singh and others and connected Sessions Trial No. 1579/2008 State vs. Smt. Sheela Singh and others, rejecting the applications moved by the accused-revisionists for discharge under section 227 Cr.P.C. 1. The facts which gave rise to this revision, in brief, are that on a report lodged by one Vijay Kumar Singh a case under section 498A & 304 B I.P.C. and D.P. Act was registered at P.S. Itaunja of District Lucknow with the allegations against the husband of the deceased and his relatives, including the revisionists, that his younger sister Vandana was married to Anand Prakash Singh on 20.5.2003 and when on 27.5.2003 she returned from her matrimonial home, she disclosed to her mother that her husband, his father Budh Prakash Singh and his elder brothers Ram Kumar Singh and Shiv Kumar Singh and their wives Sheela Singh and Rita Singh were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and she was subjected to cruelty at their hands on account thereof. On 5.11.2003 she again went to her matrimonial home after the Gauna Ceremony and when she returned in February, 2004, she told to her mother that she had been harassed on account of demand of dowry. On 2.5.2004 she had gone to her matrimonial home and on 9.5.2004 at about 4.00 a.m. it was informed that she had died. 2. The police undertook the investigation and filed a charge sheet only against the husband of the deceased whereupon Sessions Trial No. 1919 of 2006 proceeded against him and some evidence of a witness was recorded in it. In the meanwhile, two supplementary charge sheets have been filed against the revisionists on the basis of which Sessions Trial Nos. 1162/2008 and 1579/2008 have been instituted, wherein the revisionists moved applications, under section 227 Cr.P.C., for their discharge. The learned trial court after hearing the parties, dismissed the applications by order dated 17.12.2009, which has been challenged in this revision. 3. I have heard Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Shri Himanshu Tiwari, learned counsel representing the complainant has also been heard. 4. The learned trial court after hearing the parties, dismissed the applications by order dated 17.12.2009, which has been challenged in this revision. 3. I have heard Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Shri Himanshu Tiwari, learned counsel representing the complainant has also been heard. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the incident of death of Vandana had taken place at village Rewa Mau, whereas the revisionists are residing in Sector 'H' Jankipuram, Lucknow and there is no evidence on record to show that at the time of the incident any of the revisionists was present in the village, thus no offence of section 304-B IPC is primafacie made out against the revisionists and even assuming that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer is correct, the revisionists can not be convicted for the offence of the said section. It is also contended that as per F.I.R. whenever the deceased had visited her maternal home she had told to her mother about the alleged cruel treatment given to her in her matrimonial home on account of dowry, but the statement of her mother does not reveal as to what was being demanded in dowry and what cruel treatment was meted out to the deceased. 5. The contention of the learned A.G.A., on the other hand, is that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer shows that the deceased had not only disclosed about the cruel treatment and harassment to her mother but also to her brother and brother's wife specifically naming the revisionists. It has been submitted that since the deceased had died at her matrimonial home, therefore, there can not be any direct evidence in respect of the specific role played by each of the accused persons and the circumstances of the case show that the deceased had died within one year of her marriage in otherwise than normal circumstances and there is evidence on record that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment not only by her husband but by the relatives of her husband, including the revisionists, in connection with the demand of dowry. 6. 6. It has also been pointed out by the learned A.G.A. that during her entire married life of less than a year, the deceased had stayed for about four and half months at her matrimonial home and there is evidence on record that during this period she had stayed for about four months at Jankipuram, Lucknow, where the revisionists reside. 7. Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. relating to discharge/framing of charge read as under:- "227.Discharge.- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 228. Framing of charge.- (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge, is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which - (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. 2. Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. " 8. From the reading of section 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition it would be clear that at the beginning of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not judged. " 8. From the reading of section 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition it would be clear that at the beginning of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not judged. The requirements of these sections are that there should be a finding that a prima facie case was made out and sufficiency of evidence resulting into conviction is not to be seen, which will be seen at the conclusion of the trial, whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed if there are materials showing possibility as against the certainty about the commission of the crime. An accused can be discharged only when it is found that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings against them. 9. As this case relates to the offence of dowry death under section 304-B IPC, therefore, the presumption as to such offence as envisaged under section 113-B of the Evidence Act shall be taken, according to which, when the question is whether a person has committed dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment, for or in connection with, any demand of dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. 10. Smt. Jai Devi, the mother of the deceased, has stated in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that after the Gauna her daughter Vandana lived with her husband and parents in law for about 4 months at Jankipuram, Lucknow and when her son Vijay Singh had gone to bring Vandana near Holi then her husband, parents in law and brothers and sisters in law (Jeth and Jethanis) had demanded coloured T.V. and C.D. Player and after persistent request Vandana was allowed to go with him and then she told her about the harassment in respect of the demand of dowry. Besides the mother, her brother Putan Singh and his wife Smt. Urmila Singh have also stated about the cruel treatment given to the deceased by her brothers and sisters in law (Jeths and Jethanis). 11. Besides the mother, her brother Putan Singh and his wife Smt. Urmila Singh have also stated about the cruel treatment given to the deceased by her brothers and sisters in law (Jeths and Jethanis). 11. Learned trial court has considered the evidence collected by the I.O. and has rightly observed that there is sufficient ground to presume that the accused/applicants (revisionists) have prima facie committed the offence of sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and D.P. Act, for which charges have been framed against them. 12. In view of above, the impugned order does not appear to be suffering with any illegality or jurisdictional error which could warrant interference of this Court. 13. This revision has, therefore, no force and is accordingly dismissed.