Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 284 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Sangeeta

2025-02-11

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
Order : 1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 /401 Cr.P.C . has been filed by the petitioner-State against the order dated 27.10.2020, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer in Sessions Case No.40/2019, whereby the learned Judge discharged the accused-respondent from the offence punishable under Section 306/120B IPC . 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.03.2019, complainant submitted a written report before the Mahila Police Station, Barmer to the effect that marriage of his daughter Jethi was solemnized with one Dalla Ram. After marriage, Dalla Ram started harassing the complainant’s daughter, mentally and physically, for bringing less dowry. Dalla Ram was also having illicit relationship with the accused-respondent Sangeeta and they used to beat Jethi. It was alleged that due to mental and physical harassment, complainant’s daughter Jethi committed suicide. On this, FIR was registered against Dalla Ram and accused-respondent Sangeeta and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against accused Dalla Ram. Thereafter, charges were framed against accused Dalla Ram. Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondent under Section 306/120B IPC . 3. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments, vide order dated 27.10.2020, discharged the accused-respondent from offence under Section 306/120B IPC . Hence, this revision petition. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned trial court has committed grave error in law and facts while discharging the accused-respondent from the aforesaid offence despite the fact that prima facie there is ample evidence available against her. It is submitted that the complainant has levelled specific allegation against accused Dalla Ram and accused- respondent Sangeeta for harassing her daughter Jethi and due to the harassment, she committed suicide. Learned PP submits that at the time of framing of charge, meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required. The trial court only has to see the prima facie case against the accused to frame the charge. Thus, the impugned order is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the learned trial court has rightly discharged the accused-respondent as prima facie there is no evidence against her for abetment to commit suicide. The impugned order is just and proper and requires no interference from this Court. 6. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-respondent as well as perused the impugned order. 7. The impugned order is just and proper and requires no interference from this Court. 6. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-respondent as well as perused the impugned order. 7. In the present case, the complainant filed an FIR alleging that his daughter Jethi committed suicide due to mental and physical harassment given by his husband Dalla Ram and accused- respondent Sangeeta. After investigation, Police filed challan against accused Dalla Ram for offence under Sections 498A, 323 306/120B IPC and thereafter, charges were framed against him by the trial court for the aforesaid offences. Against the accused- respondent Sangeeta, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed by the Police for offence under Section 306/120B IPC . 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that two witnesses namely Shreyash and Sakshi, who are son and daughter of accused Dalla Ram, were examined as PW-1 & PW-2 and they specifically deposed that their mother Jethi died due to drowning in a water tank. Both the witnesses were declared hostile. It has also been observed by the trial court that from the investigation done by the Police, it does not appear that the accused- respondent ever met deceased Jethi or they had any kind of conversations on phone. Further, the prosecution has failed to produce the certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act in respect of the call details of accused-respondent Sangeeta. Police has implicated the accused-respondent in this case only on the basis of call details and whats app chats with Dalla Ram. Thus, prima facie, there is no evidence against accused-respondent for commission of the alleged offence. Thus, the learned trial court has rightly discharged the accused-respondent from the offence punishable under Section 306/120B IPC offence. The impugned order is a detailed and reasoned order. 8. This Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned order and the same does not require any interference from this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition, being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 10. Stay application is also dismissed. 11. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.