IMPORTANT POINT
Charge u/s 304B IPC could not be framed against a female who was alleged to have had illicit relations with husband of deceased and husband was perpetuating cruelty and harassment on deceased.

ORDER

Dhirendra Mishra, J—This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 5.9.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed in Sessions Trial No. 15/07 whereby learned Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Section 304B and in the alternative under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) against the petitioners herein for the death of Smt. Sandhya Singh, wife of petitioner No. 1-Santosh Kumar Singh.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Smt. Sandhya Singh wife of Sanjay Singh and daughter of Baijnath Chand i.e. the complainant, died on 5.9.2006 i.e. within 7 years of her marriage with the petitioner No. 1, which was solemnized on 20.4.2001 and according to the postmortem report cause of death was hanging by rope around the neck leading to asphyxia. On the basis written report of Baijnath Chand, father of the deceased, offence under Sections 304B & 306/34 of the IPC was registered and accordingly, charge sheet was filed and the trial court has framed the charges by the impugned order against the petitioners herein.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that from perusal of the written complaint as also from the statement of witnesses recorded during trial it would be evident that there is no evidence available on record to show that any cruelty was committed against the deceased soon before her death. The allegations of demand of dowry of Rs. 1 Lac against the petitioner No. 1 and 2 are vague in the absence of details and there is no allegation of cruelty, as defined within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC. From perusal of framing of charge particularly under Section 306, it is evident that the trial court has not even mentioned that the accused persons abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He further submits that petitioner No. 3 is nowhere related to the deceased and there is no allegation against her that she committed cruelty with the deceased. The only allegation against her is that she had illicit relationship with the petitioner No. 1 and because of this also the deceased was tortured so many times. It has been mentioned in the complaint that numerous fresh injuries of beating were present over the person of the deceased when the complainant saw the dead body in the hospital and thereby it has been alleged that after murdering her in the planned manner, the deceased was hanged. However, this allegation is belied from the postmortem report as also the inquest report of the deceased, which clearly mentions no other injury except the injuries of ligature mark. It is further argued that even if the evidence available in the charge sheet is accepted in its entirety, then also the petitioners cannot be convicted for the alleged offence and the trial court was not justified in framing charge by the impugned order. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari and others.1

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition and argued that there are specific allegations against the petitioner No. 1 & 2 that deceased used to complaint that petitioner No. 1 & 2 tortured her from time to time in the name of demand of dowry and on receiving this information the complainant had paid Rs. 1 Lac twice. Further the petitioner No. 1 has illicit relationship with the petitioner No. 3, wife of tenant of the petitioners, and on this account also she was tortured and recently the deceased asked her father on telephone to take her back or else they would murder her, on which the father of the deceased brought back the deceased and thereafter left her back on 31.8.2006 and thereafter, she died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan and another.2

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. After going through the allegations present in the written report as also diary statement of complainant Baijnath Chand, Balram,