Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1138 (PNJ)

Asha Rani v. State of Punjab

2013-08-23

Inderjit Singh

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - The criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala for summoning the revision petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the petitioner is married sister of the husband of the deceased Jagdeep Kaur. The petitioner has been married much earlier to the marriage of Jagdeep Kaur (since deceased) with the brother of revision petitioner, namely, Sandeep Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there are no allegations in the FIR regarding demand of dowry or maltreatment by the revision petitioner or any abetment. Even there is no allegation regarding any oral dying declaration against the revision petitioner in the FIR but when the complainant appeared in the Court, he made material improvement regarding oral dying declaration against Asha Rani. 3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General and learned counsel for the complainant argued that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is as per law and revision petitioner has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of evidence produced before the trial Court as well as also other material placed on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Assistant Advocate General argued that the revision petition be dismissed. 4. I have gone through the record and heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. From the record, I find that the FIR was got registered by Devinder Singh-complainant, uncle of the deceased. As per prosecution version Jagdeep Kaur was married with Sandeep Kumar about three years back. He stated that marriage was performed after giving dowry beyond the capacity of his brother Sukhwinder Singh. But after the marriage, the in-laws family of his niece Jagdeep Kaur i.e. her husband Sandeep Kumar, father-in-law Shingara Ram, mother-in-law Bhajan Kaur and sister-in-law Asha Rani were harassing his niece for bringing less dowry, regarding which Jagdeep Kaur used to apprise him after coming to her parent’s house. It is also stated that the in-laws family of Jagdeep Kaur and her husband Sandeep Kumar used to taunt her and were compelling her to give divorce, but she had not agreed and due to this, they used to harass her and beat her. It is also stated that the in-laws family of Jagdeep Kaur and her husband Sandeep Kumar used to taunt her and were compelling her to give divorce, but she had not agreed and due to this, they used to harass her and beat her. It is also the case of the complainant that an application was given by Jagdeep Kaur to Superintendent of Police, Patiala on 16.12.2009. It is also in the FIR that on receiving information when the complainant reached, Jagdeep Kaur told him that her husband Sandeep Kumar, father-in-law Shingara Singh, mother-in-law Bhajan Kaur in conspiracy with each other have made her to consume some poisonous substance. 6. A perusal of the allegations in the FIR itself shows that there is nothing specific regarding demand of dowry. There are general allegations that they were harassing for bringing less dowry but there is no allegation in the FIR whether any specific article or cash amount or gold ornaments etc. were demanded as dowry by revision petitioner Asha Rani. Asha Rani is married sister-in-law of the deceased residing separately in another city i.e. Mohali in her matrimonial house. She is not to be benefited by any demand of dowry. There is also no specific instance given regarding harassment by her. Again the allegation is general and she and Sandeep Kumar husband of the deceased used to ask her to give divorce to Sandeep Kumar. Except this, there is nothing against Asha Rani. Asha Rani has already been found innocent during the investigation and her name was kept in column No.2 of the challan. As per FIR, there was also no oral dying declaration against Asha Rani. Though while appearing in the Court, Devinder Singh PW has also added her name in the oral dying declaration, which is a material improvement and not supported and corroborated by other material on the record. Now-a-days in the case of harassment on the basis of demand of dowry or under the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, it is trend to implicate all the family members by levelling general allegations. In the present case also, there is no specific allegation against Asha Rani regarding any specific demand of dowry. There is also no specific instance given regarding harassment on the basis of demand of dowry. In the present case also, there is no specific allegation against Asha Rani regarding any specific demand of dowry. There is also no specific instance given regarding harassment on the basis of demand of dowry. There is also nothing on the record to show any abetment by Asha Rani to Jagdeep Kaur to commit suicide etc. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act also does not lie against Asha Rani, who is sister of the husband of the deceased. Even in the complaint made by Jagdeep Kaur to Superintendent of Police, Patiala, there are no specific instances of harassment or demand of dowry by Asha Rani. It is only stated that at the instigation of Asha Rani, Sandeep Kumar, Shingara Ram and Bhajan Kaur used to harass and beat Jagdeep Kaur. These are only general allegations. It is also brought to my notice at the time of arguments that mother-in-law has already been acquitted of the charges framed against her by the trial Court. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that there appears to be no material on the record to show that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 304-B IPC or under Section 498-A IPC. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in extra-ordinary circumstances. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah etc. v. State of Gujarat and others, 2011(3) RCR (Cr.) 852, in which it is held that the power to proceed against any person, not being an accused before the Court, must be exercised only where there appears during inquiry or trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the offence as an accused and not otherwise. In other words, the Court must be satisfied that a case for addition of persons as accused, not being the accused before it, has been made out on the additional evidence let in before it. It is also held that the Court while exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must keep in view full conspectus of the case including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then. It is also held that the Court while exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must keep in view full conspectus of the case including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then. It is also held in this case that power to summon accused is an extraordinary power and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist. The law laid down in the above judgment fully applies to the facts of the present case and from the perusal of the record, I find that the case against the husband and the mother-inlaw has already been decided and mother-in-law has already been acquitted and there is no material on record on the basis of which it can be held that any compelling reasons exist. Rather, it looks that the order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been passed in routine. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarabjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another, 2009(3) RCR (Cr.) 388 in which it is held that Section 319 Cr.P.C. confers discretionary jurisdiction on Court to summon a person as additional accused to face trial. This is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. I have gone through the law laid down in this judgment, which fully applies to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000 (2) RCR (Cr.) 75, in which it was observed by the Supreme Court that the basic requirement for invoking the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some person, who is not arraigned as an accused in the case, had committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It was held that it is not enough that the Court should entertain some doubt from the evidence about the involvement of another person, the Court ought to have some reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. Firstly, that the other person has committed an offence and secondly for such an offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. It was further observed that the power conferred on the Court is discretionary but the same should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice and it is not that the Court should turn against the other person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for keeping a conspectus of the case including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then and also the amount of time which the Court has spent for collecting such evidence. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suman v. State of Rajasthan and another, [2009(6) Law Herald (SC) 3902] : 2009 (4) RCR (Cr.) 908, in which it is held that person not already an accused in a case can be proceeded against if in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence it appears from the evidence that such person has also committed any offence and deserves to be tried with other accused. I have gone through the facts of this case. This case having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case. Accused told the complainant that in the marriage items like scooter, fridge, air-conditioner etc. have not been given and the marriage party was not served well. Accused and her mother forcibly took the complainant to a lady doctor and got implanted Copper-T so that she may not give birth to any child. On a particular day, husband gave beatings to complainant and accused snatched her hair and forcibly removed ear rings. The complainant in her letters to her parents specifically mentioned about the demand of dowry, physical and mental harassment, which are not the facts in the present case. On a particular day, husband gave beatings to complainant and accused snatched her hair and forcibly removed ear rings. The complainant in her letters to her parents specifically mentioned about the demand of dowry, physical and mental harassment, which are not the facts in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Harbhajan Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2518 (SC) : 2009(5) Law Herald (SC) 3144] : 2009 (3) RCR (Cr.) 916. This case is relating to dying declaration, but in the present case as stated in the FIR in the oral dying declaration the revision petitioner is not named. The witness made material improvement while deposing in the Court. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another, [2007(3) Law Herald (SC) 2420] : 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1022. I have gone through this judgement. This judgement having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case. In that case it is held that Court need not be satisfied that he has committed an offence. It need only appear to it that he has committed an offence. In the present case, there is no evidence on record which shows that the revision petitioner appears to have committed the offence. 10. Therefore, from the above discussion, I find merit in the revision petition and the order passed by the trial Court is not as per law. There does not appear to show that the present revision petitioner has also committed the offence. Therefore, finding merit in the revision petition, the same is allowed and the order passed by the trial Court is set aside. --------0.B.S.0------------