Vishwendra And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 01.02.2018 whereby the learned trial court has framed the charge for the offence under

Sections 498-A, 406 and 304B IPC against accused-petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that infact the reason of the incident was suspicion in the mind of the deceased Narmada about the

character of her husband Vishwendra. There is no evidence available on record regarding any cruelty having been committed by the petitioners in

regard to the demand of dowry. Learned counsel has further contended that in so far petitioner no.2 Indra, who happens to be mother-in-law of

deceased Narmada is concerned, there is not even iota of evidence of having committed cruelty or harassment. It has further been contended that the

order dated 01.02.2018 does not speak of the main ingredients to have been found established in the charge-sheet on the basis of which charge for the

offence under Sections 498-A, 406 and 304B IPC would have been framed.

Per contra, learned public prosecutor has drawn attention of the Court to the fact that the marriage of deceased with petitioner no.1 took place on

18.02.2017 and death of deceased Narmada has taken place on 29.04.2017 i.e. within a period of 3 months. He has also contended that there is

specific allegation against the husband Vishwendra to have demanded Rs. 1.0 lakh from Narmada after marriage. This allegation has been mentioned

in the statement of Smt. Rajni and Hemwati who happen to be sister-in-laws of deceased. Mother of deceased Bhagwan Devi has also stated about

the conduct and cruelty committed by mother-in-law Indra.

In light of the arguments advanced by both the sides I have gone through the relevant record and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

So far as the conduct of Vishwendra is concerned, though there is a mention in the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of suspicion in the mind of deceased

regarding the conduct and character of Vishwendra, but at the same time specific allegation of making demand of Rs.1 lakh has also been made by

the witnesses. It has also been stated that he used to give beatings to deceased in regard to demand of Rs.1 lakh.

In so far as the conduct of Indra is concerned, Smt. Rajni and Hemwati have stated that deceased Narmada used to tell them that her mother-in-law

used to harass her. Bhagwan Devi has also stated that on the fateful day Indira gave beatings to deceased by belt and then Indra and Vishwendra

murdered her by strangulation. Father of deceased Dori Lal has also stated that Vishwendra, Indra and some other persons killed his daughter while

making a demand of Rs.1 lakh as dowry.

In light of the statements referred above it cannot be inferred that there is no evidence available on the record to frame charges against the petitioners

for aforesaid offences. At the stage of framing charge, only serious suspicion about the involvement of the accused-persons in the alleged crime is

sufficient to frame charge against them. In case when the statements of prosecution witnesses if remain unrebutted, even then there cannot be any

possibility of conviction then only the case of discharge is made out, but this is not case in the matter in hand.

In view of above, there is no substance in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.