( 1 ) DECEASED Smt. Neelam was married to Petitioner No. 1 - Jatinder Kumar on 9/12/1985. Petitioner No. 2 Dina Nath and petitioner No. 3 - Mala Devi are parents of Jatinder Kumar. Petitioner No. 4 Kumari Veena and Petitioner No. 5 - Kumari Poonam are sisters of Jatinder. Neelam, according to the case of the prosecution, died of burn injuries on the night intervening 6th and 7/07/1986. By the impugned order dated 29/08/1989 the learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed that all the petitioners are liable to be charged under S. 498a IPC and under Ss. 302/34 IPC. the Additional Sessions Judge has further directed that in the alternative petitioners be also charged under Ss. 306/498 IPC.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS 1 to 3 have no grievance in respect of that part of the order which directs framing of charge against them under Ss. 306 and 498a, IPC. The grievance of the said petitioners, however, is that there is no material justifying the part of the impugned order which directs that charge under S. 302 is liable to be framed. The other grievance pressed on their behalf is that, in no case, the charge under S. 306 IPC can be framed in the alternative. The contention is that the prosecution has to make up its mind whether the facts which can be proved justify framing of charge under S. 302 IPC or charge under S. 306 IPC. On behalf of petitioners 4 and 5, it is contended that there is no material whatsoever justifying the part of the order directing that the charge is liable to be framed against them.

( 3 ) FIRST I will consider the contention that no charge is liable to be framed against petitioners 4 and 5. The learned counsel for the parties have taken me through the material on record. The only material to which the learned State counsel could draw my attention was to the statement of the father of deceased named Chander Prakash. The statement of Chander Prakash under S. 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 11/07/1989. Prior to the said date, on 9/07/1989, statements of mother, father and uncle of the deceased under S. 161 Cr. P. C. had been recorded in which nothing has been stated against petitioners 4 and 5, who it appears, were young girls aged about 18 and 20 years respectively on the date of the incident. Chander Prakash in his statement has only stated that the behaviour of these two girls was bad towards the deceased. Except this general and vague statement, no material has been shown to this court against the two girls Veena and Poonam to cast a suspicion that these girls are involved in commission of offence under any provisions of the IPC. Under S. 498a these girls could be charged if there was any evidence to prima facie show that they had subjected deceased to cruelty. cruelty for the purposes of S. 498a means any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her, to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. From a bare vague and general statement that the behaviour of the two girls towards the deceased was becoming bad it cannot be said that prima facie the offence under S. 498a has been made out. Learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has also not been able to show any material from which the court could come to the conclusion that grave suspicion against petitioners 4 and 5 exists and the charge under S. 302 IPC or 306 IPC is liable to be framed against the said two petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned order insofar as it directs that petitioners 4 and 5 are liable to be charged under S. 498a and Ss. 302/ 34 IPC or in the alternative under Ss. 306/498a IPC is liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) REVERTING to the grievance of petitioners 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document