( 1 ) MR. JUSTICE S. Ravindra Bhat the revision petitioner, under Section 397 challenges an order on charge, framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereafter "asj")whereby he has been charged with commission of offence under Section 498-A, indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter "ipc" ).

( 2 ) ACCORDING to allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) the petitioner, husband of Anju, (the deceased, referred to as such) had a quarrel with her; as a result, she set fire to herself, in a fit of anger. The incident occurred on 7-11-2004 The deceased was removed to the hospital; her initial statement was that she caught fire while cooking; in a subsequent statement, recorded after she was found fit to make another statement, she gave a different version. She said that after a quarrel with the husband, in a fit of rage, she went, poured kerosine, and set herself ablaze. She also stated that she did not realize that the incident could become so serious. Later, on 13th November, 2004, she died, on account of infection, caused by 48% burns. The FIR registered was for the offence under Section 306, and Section 498-A. The marriage between the couple had been solemnized 15 years before the incident.

( 3 ) AFTER charge sheet was filed, the prosecution urged that the petitioner ought to be charged with both offences; the trial court considered the materials, and held that the charge under Section 306 was not made out. It, however, framed the charge under Section 498-A on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 161, by the minor daughter of the couple, who had mentioned about how the petitioner, her father, had allegedly stated "sali, mar kyon nahin jati" before the deceased set fire to herself.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ramesh Gupta, submitted that there is no iota of evidence to justify an order on charge, in respect of section 498-A IPC. According to him, the mainstay of the prosecution story was the testimony of the daughter, who spoke of an alleged incident whereby the petitioner had abused the deceased, immediately before she set fire to herself. The court having declined to accept that statement as the basis of a charge in respect of the more serious offence, viz Section, 306, could not have used it for the purpose of charging the petitioner under Section 498-A.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel also relied upon the deposition, and cross examination of minor Swati, who had earlier given a statement under Section 161. She had deposed, during the trial on 22-2-2007. In the course of her deposition, she did not support the prosecution story, and denied that the petitioner had ever abused her mother, or that he had abused her. She testified that the petitioner sought to help the deceased, by dousing the fire, and got injured himself. She also withstood the cross examination by the public prosecutor, who requested, and was granted permission to treat her as a hostile witness.

( 6 ) ON the strength of the above, it was contended that there was no material, to justify a charge under Section 498-A, and that the ingredients of that offence did not exist. Mr. Gupta relied upon the decisions reported as gananath Pattnaik -vs- State of Orissa 2002 (2) SCC 619, and Suraj Prakash -vs-State of Delhi 2007 (1) (AD) (Del) 445, to say that there ought to be evidence in support of the charge under Section 498-A, of cruelty of such magnitude as would lead a person to commit suicide.

( 7 ) THE petition was opposed by the State, on whose behalf, it was urged that the trial court was justified in framing the charge under Section 498-A. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment in Cr. RP. No. 172/2002 ( State-vs- Ashok Kumar) decided on 16-10-2006, and urged that a charge under Section 498-A, IPC, independent of Section 306 or 304-B IPC, can be framed.

( 8 ) THE decision in Ganapathi Pattnaik (supra) had noted that the ingredients necessary to make out an offence under Section 498-A, were:

" (a) any wilful conduct whi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document