Mangi Lal vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—The instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 6.1.2015 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case NO. 49/2014 whereby the learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

As per the facts of the case on 16.5.2014 the complainant Suresh Kumar, brother of the deceased Rajbala and wife of the petitioner filed a written report to the Police Station Gogamedhi alleging therein that the marriage of his sister Rajbala was solemnized 10 years ago with petitioner as per the customs and rites. After marriage, 2 children were born, but soon after the marriage, the petitioner started torturing his sister for dowry and therefore, several Panchayats were convened for compromise in which petitioner apologies to settle his sister. As per the allegation, the petitioner was demanding motor cycle and cash amount from the wife and he was regularly drinking liquor and severely beating her so as to harass his sister and due to repeated torturing and demand of dowry, the wife of the petitioner Rajbala committed suicide by strangulation and this information was given by father-in-law Balram on telephone at about 6.30 a.m. on 9.6.2014. Upon receiving such complaint, the author of FIR and his father alongwith other persons of community went on spot and they saw that his sister was handing on a tree. Upon aforesaid report filed by Suresh Kumar, brother of the deceased Rajbala, wife of the petitioner an FIR No. 116/2014 was registered and after usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

The learned trial court after hearing the arguments framed charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC against the petitioner vide order dated 6.1.2015 and in this petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of said order dated 6.1.2015 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge NO. 2, Nohar, District Hanumangar.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the charge under Section 306 IPC has wrongly been framed against the petitioner because as per the definition of abatement under Section 107 IPC, there is no evidence on record to prove the fact that any abatement was made by the petitioner to commit suicide by his wife Rajbala, therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC may be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court towards the statements of Aakash son of the petitioner recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submits that according to the statement of Aakash, the petitioner went to the Sikarodi at about 3-4 days ago from the date of incident and consumed liquor in the house of relatives of in-laws, therefore, the father of the deceased informed to the deceased that her husband is continuously consuming liquor there with other members, therefore, the brother-in-law of petitioner went to Sikarodi and taken back him at 16 JSN. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner the deceased made complaint to the complainant that he has insulted her before her relatives and, thereafter, committed suicide but such evidence cannot be treated to be an abatement so as to say that petitioner is guilty for offence under Section 306 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the evidence collected during investigation, there is no evidence for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC, therefore, the order for framing charge under Sections 306 and 498A IPC may be quashed. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the judgments delivered in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Swamay Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. and anr. Reported in 1999 Cr. L.R. (SC) 141 and submits that as per the said judgments the charge framed under Section 306 IPC may be quashed.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that as per the evidence collected during investigation and filed before the Trial Court with the charge-sheet the offence under Section 498A and 306 IPC are clearly made out. While inviting attention towards the statements of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Jagdish, Ran Singh, Manroop, Mahendra, Nandroop, Surendra and Mahaveer it is submitted that upon perusal of statements of these witnesses it will reveal that there is ample evidence on record upon which the charges under Section 306 and 498A IPC should have been framed by the learned trial court, therefore, this revision petition may be dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the statements of Suresh Kumar (brother of the deceased), Ran Singh (father of the deceased) and statements of Manroop, Jagdish, Mahendra, Nandroop, Surendra and Mahaveer recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In my opinion, on the basis of the above statement, it cannot be said that there was no demand of dowry. Moreover, in the statement of these witnesses it is specifically stated by the witnesses that soon after the marriage, the petitioner was continuously demanding money and motor cycle from the deceased and lastly soon before the occurrence, an incident took place in which the petitioner went to the house of his in-laws in drunken condition and brought back at that time deceased made complaint to the petitioner that you have insulted her by using abusive language and during that time, as per the evidence of witnesses, quarrel took place and, thereafter, the deceased committed suicide.

In my opinion, although there is no direct evidence for abatement to commit suicide but this Court cannot loose sight that every married lady wants to live in peace and husband is required to create peaceful atmosphere in the house, but the evidence, which is on record clearly revealed that soon after the marriage, petitioner started harassing the deceased by the act of consuming liquor and demanding money for motor cycle. Therefore, for framing charge under Section 306 IPC the learned trial court is not required to minutely consider the evidence. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the fact of present case. The case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Segar (supra) was related with the brother-in-law against whom the allegation was made that some filthy language was used by him and due to those words, suicide was committed by his brother-in-law (sister''s husband) but here in this case, there is ample evidence on record to prove the fact that soon after the marriage, the petitioner was repeatedly demanding money and motor cycle, so also regularly harassing after consuming liquor, therefore, the wife of the petitioner Rajbala suffered mental agony and committed suicide. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly framed the charge for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner. This court feels that the conduct of the petitioner can be treated to be an abatement against wife, may not be against other family members, but husband being custodian of wife is responsible for good or bad behavior with the wife and that action can be considered for framing charge, therefore, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that facts of the cases cited by the petitioner are altogether different.

In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere in the order framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 and 498A IPC.

Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.