Amra Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—In the instant revision petition, the petitioner complainant has prayed for quashing order dated 3.4.1996, by which, application filed by the petitioner complainant u/s 216, Cr.P.C. for modification of charge was rejected. As per facts of the case, on 21.7.1995, petitioner Amra Ram filed written report with Police Station Balesar to the effect that his daughter Smt. Raju was weeded to Om Prakash on 24.5.1995 and, at the time of marriage, respondent No. 2 demanded money for dowry in front of all the relatives and villagers but, after intervention, the matter was settled because it was assured that demand will be fulfilled after marriage.

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 was repeatedly making demand of Rs. 20,000/- and on 18.7.1995 respondent No. 2 came to the residence of the complainant but did not take meals and gave beating to deceased Raju and, on the next day, he went away from the house of the complainant. In the morning Smt. Raju, daughter of the complainant, was looking sand and, upon enquiry made by her father, she told that respondent No. 2 beat her and demanded 3 tola gold and Rs. 3,000/- otherwise it as threatened to her that she may not turn back to his house.

As per allegation of the complainant-petitioner, second day, his daughter poured kerosene upon her and set fire. Ultimately, she died. The police after investigation filed challan against respondent No. 2 u/s 304-B and 498-A, IPC and, after committal the Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Court of Special Judge, N.S.P.S. Cases, Jodhpur for trial.

During the course of trial, after hearing arguments, the trial Court discharged the accused for offence u/s 304-B, IPC on the ground that death of the deceased was not covered by expression "soon before the death" and, upon the fact that deceased died in the house of her parents.

After framing charge, the petitioner being complainant filed application u/s 216, Cr.P.C. for amendment of the charge and adding charge u/s 304-B I.P.C. but the learned trial Court dismissed the said application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per facts of the case charge u/s 304-B, I.P.C. was made out and learned trial Court committed error while discharging the accused-respondent from offence u/s 304-B I.P.C. and framing charge u/s 306 and 498-A I.P.C., therefore, the complainant rightly filed application u/s 216, Cr.P.C. for amendment of the charge but the learned trial Court rejected the application on illegal ground; but, the fact remains that as per investigation made by the police although the deceased was residing at her father''s house at the relevant time but on the previous night the accused threatened the deceased and demanded gold and money. Therefore, it is submitted that order impugned may be quashed and trial Court may be directed to amend the charge and, in place, charge u/s 304-B I.P.C. may also be ordered to be added and, thereafter, trial may be commenced.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that although after investigation the police filed challan u/s 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. but, after consideration of entire facts that the day on which the occurrence took place in the parents'' house the respondent No. 2 was not present and death occurred at the house of the parents of the deceased, therefore, the case did not fall u/s 304-B I.P.C. Hence, learned trial Court framed charge u/s 306 and 498-A I.P.C., in which, there is no error. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that no application was filed by the Public Prosecutor but the complainant filed application for amendment of charge u/s 216, Cr.P.C. without challenging the order of charge, therefore, no case is made out for interference in this case.

I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties.

Admittedly, no application was filed by the Public Prosecutor. Further, the order of framing charge is not under challenge in this revision petition. After perusal of the order impugned, first of all, it emerges from the facts that deceased Smt. Raju committed suicide at her parents'' house and, at the time of committing Suicide by Smt. Raju respondent No. 2 accused was not present there, therefore, it cannot be said that it was unnatural. Further, there is no evidence on record to prove the fact that any demand was made by respondent No. 2 at his in-laws'' house. In this view of the matter, learned trial Court has rightly passed order that there is no material on record, upon which, charge u/s 304-B I.P.C. can be based. In my opinion, on complainant''s application filed u/s 216, Cr.P.C. without challenging the order of framing charge, learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application. Further, there is discretion of the trial Court to amend the charge, in which, no interference is required. Hence, no case is made out for interference. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Record of the trial Court may be sent back forthwith.