Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2257 (RAJ)

Ramanand v. State of Rajasthan

2011-10-21

NISHA GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 6.7.2011 whereby the charge has been framed against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The short facts of the case are that Ashwini Kumar has committed suicide and the F.I.R. has been lodged against the present petitioners stating therein that the petitioner are giving threat to the deceased Ashwini Kumar that he would be involved in a case of dowry and that if he wants to die he can die. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioners. 4. The only contention of the present petitioners is that there is no evidence against the present petitioners by which it can be concluded that any instigation or aiding has been committed by the present petitioners. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that a suicide note has been left by the deceased and on the strength of suicide note, the present petitioners have been implicated. 6. The record of the cases goes to show that there are disputes between the deceased and her wife and allegations against the present petitioners are that it has been threatened by the present petitioners that they will involve the deceased in a false case of dowry. The suicidal note which has been verbatim reproduced in the seizure memo also goes to show that only allegations against the present petitioners is to lodge a false case for the offence of demand of dowry. But any such case has been lodged against the deceased, has not been stated. Hence the allegations are only omnibus and looking to the totality of evidence, there is no evidence to suggest or indicate that the present petitioners have, in any way, instigated or aided in committing of the suicide. The statement of even threat to avail the legal recourse rightly or wrongly cannot be termed as instigation or aid in the commission of the suicide. Hence, there is no evidence to charge the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 for the alleged offences. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this revision petition on behalf of petitioner No. 3. 7. In view of the above, this revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 are discharged from the charges levelled against the them. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this revision petition on behalf of petitioner No. 3. 7. In view of the above, this revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 are discharged from the charges levelled against the them. The revision petition of petitioner No. 3 is dismissed, as not pressed.Revision partly allowed. *******