HC set-aside order of trial court, directs to frame charges of dowry death and cruelty
JKUT (Jammu), December-11-2021-( JNF):- Justice Rajnesh oswal of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court set-aside the order of the Trial Court whereby Trial Court framed charges u/s 306 RPC and directed Trial Court to framed charges against Husband and Ors.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is mother of the deceased for quashing order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu by virtue of which, the learned trial court has charged the respondent Sanjay Kumar husband of deceased Krishma Devi, Pawan Kumar father-in-law of deceased and Sunita Devi mother-in-law of deceased for commission of offences under sections 306 and 498-A/34 RPC and discharged them for commission of offence under section 304-B RPC. It is submitted that the order impugned is bad in law as the learned trial court without perusing the statement of the petitioner herein has altered the charge from 304-B RPC to 306 and 498-A/34 RPC despite the fact that there was abundant evidence on record for framing of charge under section 304-B RPC against the respondents 2 to 4.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal after hearing Adv Ajay Bakshi for the petitioner S whereas AAG Aseem Sawhney appearing for the UT observed that the trial court has in fact conducted the mini trial and has appreciated the evidence that was not permissible at this stage. Thus this finding of the trial court that there was no evidence of cruelty “soon before death” is also not sustainable in view of the statement of the abovementioned witnesses. With these observationsCourt observed that the present petition succeeds and the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu is set aside and the trial court is directed to frame the charges for commission of offences under section 304-B, 498-A/34 RPC against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
Court further directed that the respondents 2 to 4 were granted bail by the trial court and as they have remained on bail for more than 2 years, as such, they shall continue to remain on bail during the course of trial.
According to police case that the petitioner submitted a written application with the Police Station, Bakshi Nagar in which it was stated that her daughter was married with respondent No. 2 in the year, 2017. The respondents 2 to 5 did not make any demand prior to the marriage, but they had given the dowry as per their capacity. The respondent No. 2 continued to demand dowry after the solemnization of marriage and started beating her daughter. Thereafter, her daughter started demanding money from them. She without disclosing to her husband gave two lacs to her few days ago but thereafter, the respondent started demanding car. They were poor people and could not meet the said demand. Due to that her in-laws started beating her. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5, last night administered beating to her daughter and she phoned her. She was upset and stated that her husband, father in law, mother in law and brother in law have started beating her and they also snatched the phone from her. Thereafter in the morning, respondent No. 2 phoned her and stated that her daughter had hanged herself. On the receipt of this information, FIR bearing No. 43/2019 for offence under sections 304-B RPC was registered and after the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet for commission of offence under section 304-B/34 RPC was filed against the respondents. The respondent No. 5 had absconded as such, charge sheet was filed in absentia. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the matter to the trial court. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments on charge/discharge, vide order dated 03.10.2019, charged the respondents 2 to 4 for commission of offence under sections 306, 498-A/34 RPC and discharged the respondents for commission of offence under section 304-B RPC. JNF