Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 246 (UTT)

Sonia v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-05-04

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order 20.04.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2018 “State Vs. Chetan and others”, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun has passed order for framing charges against the revisionists. 2. An F.I.R., bearing Case Crime No. 75 of 2015, was registered by the respondent no. 2 at Police Station Rajpur, Dehradun on 22.10.2015, alleging therein that the daughter of the respondent no. 2, namely, Komal got married with the revisionist no. 4 on 09.02.2012 and he spent almost Rs.4,50,000/- on the said marriage. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the revisionists used to assault the daughter of the respondent no. 2 on the pretext of bringing dowry. It is stated in the F.I.R. that, on 22.10.2015, his daughter called him and told his wife that Chetan, Sahib Razi and Pradip are beating her and are demanding dowry. Thereafter, at 12:00 p.m., Pradip told the son of the respondent no. 2 that Komal is no more. Thereafter, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Trial no. 25 of 2018 was registered against the accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun passed the order impugned and framed the charges against the revisionists. Hence, this Criminal Revision. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the specific case of the revisionists is that the essential ingredients of Section 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. are not made out against the revisionists, inasmuch as, there has been no demand of dowry soon before the death of Komal. He submitted that the respondent no. 2 and his wife, in their statements, have not stated that there was a demand of dowry soon before the death of Komal. He submitted that so far offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the said offence also cannot be said to have been committed by the revisionists, inasmuch as, the marriage was solemnized in the year 2012 and the incident is of 2015. Thus, the status of both the husband and wife was changed from bride and bridegroom and the said sections are not also attracted after 3 years of the marriage. Thus, the status of both the husband and wife was changed from bride and bridegroom and the said sections are not also attracted after 3 years of the marriage. He submitted that finanacial status of both the parties is very poor, therefore, the demand of dowry is very improbable and, due to stress, Komal committed suicide by hanging herself. He submitted that the whole family of the revisionists has been implicated in the instant crime. He submitted that the domestic quarrel between the husband and wife has resulted in suicide of Komal and the colour of dowry death has been given. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun is totally illegal, improper and is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State submitted that the order impugned needs no interference of this Court and the revision filed by the revisionists deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. 6. Learned Sessions Judge passed the order by observing that prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. supported the prosecution version. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge, after going through the record, applied his mind and passed the order. I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun for framing charges against the revisionists is a correct order and needs no interference of this Court. 7. The Criminal Revision stands dismissed.