Vagata and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Mohd. Yamin, J.—This is a revision u/s 397, Cr.P.C. against the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal, Distt. Jalore dated 22-10-96 by which he ordered to frame charges u/s 498A and 323, I.P.C. and read over and explained to the petitioners.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length.

The brief facts are that Sona Ram filed a FIR at police station Jaswantpura stating therein that his daughter Antri was married to Harchand five years ago. She did not bear any child, therefore, her father-in-law Samartha, mother-in-law Santok and husband Harchand regularly gave beatings to her. They used to assault her and when the cruelty continued, a panchayat was called and compromise was arrived at between both the parties. On 1-5- 96 at about 1 p.m., Samartha, Santok, Harchand, Gawara, Chhagana and Vagata gave severe beatings with lathies to Smt. Antri. The result was that she started bleeding. It was also alleged that this information was given to the complainant by Tejram. He also received information that the in-laws of Antri poured kerosene oil on her and tried to burn her but Tejram and some other persons rescued her. A case u/s 498A and 323, I.P.C. was registered against six persons. After usual investigation, police filed challan against all the six persons and the learned Magistrate by his order dated 22-10-96 framed charges against the petitioners.

The order has been challenged on the grounds that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They have been roped in with an ulterior motive in order to be harassed. It was contended that according to the medical report, Smt. Antri had only two simple abrasions but the story has been exaggerated and it is alleged that when Antri returned, she was smeared with blood. It has been contended that the FIR was against six persons but the statements of the witnesses revealed that Vohra, Harchand, Vagata and Chhagana were the persons who rescued Mst. Antri. It has been prayed that since no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, the impugned order should be quashed.

On the other hand learned PP has tried to support the order of learned Magistrate. There is no dispute that a revision u/s 397, Cr. P.C. could be filed before this Court against the order of the Magistrate though the Sessions Judge has concurrent jurisdiction.

I have gone through the evidence collected by the police during the investigation. The evidence on record reveals that for about five years Antri was being taunted and was being harassed and treated with cruelty because she was barren. The objection of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate was that the witnesses were in relation to each other and the same argument has been raised here but this is not tenable at this stage. The accused-petitioners have sufficient opportunity to cross-examine, the witnesses when they appear before the trial Court. The word ''cruelty'' is used in Section 498A, I.P.C. which means (for the purpose of this section) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman. It is settled law that a charge can be framed against an accused on the basis of strong suspicion.

Statement of Antri Kanwar has been perused by me where in she has stated that she was not given food for so many days and she was filling her belly by begging food from the neighbours. She has clearly stated that when she was sitting in the Aseri (verandah) in the morning on 1 -5-96 she was given beatings by the petitioners. They dragged her and asked her to get out and threatened that if she did not comply, she would be killed. It were some neighbours who came and rescued her. The neighbours had collected. Then the petitioners ran away. Othereye-witnesses have also supported Mst. Antri. At this stage, there is sufficient evidence to presume that a case u/s 498A and 323, I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. It hardly matters if the injury report mentions only two abrasions because in Bajwa and Others Vs. State of U.P., the Hon''ble Apex Court has observed that mere fact that if the evidence of eye-witnesses is inconsistent with the medical evidence it will not by itself render the former unreliable. It means that when there is difference in the medical evidence and of the eye-witness, the statements of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded because they are not consistent with the medical evidence.

In view of above discussion, I do not find any force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.