Reenu and Others vs State

Suresh Kait, J.—Notice. Counsel as above accepts notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties matter is taken up for final hearing.

On receipt of DD No. 6A ASI Anil Kumar along with Ct. Abhay reached at the house No. 811, Khera Khurd, wherein he found that the main gate of the house was opened and on the spot one Jai Bhan and Jaipal Khatri were present. In their presence the police broke open the door of the room and found, on the floor of the one room, dead body of one Reena W/o Hemant was lying. On enquiry it was revealed that she had been married only two years ago. The Executive Magistrate was informed, who recorded the statement of one Jaipal K Hatri, the father of deceased, which reads as under:

That he had married his elder daughter Reena on 10.02.2008 with Hemant R/o Village Khera Khurd, as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and he had spent Rs. 15 lacs on the marriage. After marriage, his daughter used to be harassed by her husband and Nanad Kavita for the demand of dowry. His son in law used to demand Santro Car, though, he had given an alto Car in the marriage, which he had broken down. The sisters of his son in law used to demand their share in the property and they used to threaten his daughter that in case, the demands were not met they would kill her.

This fact was disclosed to him by his daughter Reena. Today on 8.12.2009, he was informed by one Jai Bhagwan that Hemant had killed Reena and had run away. Thereafter, he reached the spot and found that the main gate of the house was open and with the help of police, the door of the room was broken, where the dead body of his daughter was lying and he was having strong suspicion that his daughter Reena had been killed by her husband Hemant and three sister in laws along with Mama of Hemant in a conspiracy.

On the said complaint endorsement was made and consequently an FIR No. 257/2009 u/s 498A/304B was registered at P.S.S.B. Dairy and investigations were taken up by Inspector Vikram Singh.

During investigation by another Inspector Rakesh Rawat to whom the complainant produced two letters written in the handwritings of the deceased which were also seized. Supplementary charge-sheet qua the accused persons Renu, Ranjana, Kavita and Joginder was also filed.

Vide order dated 22.09.2009 the court directed that both the charge-sheets to be tried together, as they emanated from the same FIR. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed and vide order dated 22.03.2011 order on charge was passed.

It is apparent from the statement of complainant Jaipal Khatri recorded on 08.12.2009 by the SDM, and his supplementary statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 28.04.2010. The statement of his wife Krishna u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the writings left by the deceased Reena, which has been found to be in her hand writing as per the report of the hand writing expert of the FSL dated 26.11.2010.

On the basis of the sufficient material on record the learned trial Judge has framed the charge u/s 302 IPC against the accused Hemant Mann, the husband of deceased, and against the Petitioners/co-accused u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.

In the present case there is sufficient material on record as well as the allegations that all the accused persons soon before the death of the deceased treated her with cruelty in relation to the demand of dowry as stated by father of the deceased in his statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure that the deceased told him on 21.11.2009 i.e. soon before her death, which took place on 08.12.2009. There is a similar statement made by his wife Krishna mother of the deceased regarding cruelty made out by all the accused persons on the deceased in relation to the demand of dowry soon before her death.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that on mere suspicion none of the person can be impleaded in the criminal case. The letters on record are undated. The first statement recorded before SDM which is at page 48 of the petition shows that there was no demand of dowry before the death of deceased. Petitioners were implicated only in the supplementary statements.

The Petitioner is in the revision against the charge framed. The settled law is that if the evidence against the Petitioner goes un-rebutted, even then the accused persons would not be convicted or a case of no evidence, in that case the accused persons could be discharged at the stage of framing of charge.

Here in the instant case the statement of the father and mother of the deceased who made allegations against the Petitioners and thereafter the handwriting expert has also given the opinion on the letters written to the father and mother of the deceased prior to her death, wherein allegations are there against the Petitioners.

Admittedly, the marriage was solemnized on 10.02.2008 and death took place within the seven years of marriage under the suspicious circumstances. As is recorded in the post-mortem report the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia, as a result of smothering. Postmortem findings are consistent with attempt to manually strangulate, and as per settled law if the ingredients of Section 304B are satisfied, then the section would apply, if the death is unnatural, either homicidal of suicidal, it would be the death, which can be said to have taken place in unnatural circumstances and the provision of Section 304B would be attracted. Accordingly, the charge would be framed u/s 304B also, as was decided by the Supreme Court in case of Smt Shanti and Another Vs. State of Haryana,

Prima facie, in the letters the serious allegations are made against the Petitioner. Moreover, at the stage of charge the Court cannot examine and appreciate the evidence meticulously, as this is not an appeal before this Court, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Judge.

The revision petition No. 271/2011 is dismissed.

All other pending applications are disposed of being infructuous.