IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the framing of charges under IPC Sections 304B and 498A, emphasizing the necessity of establishing essential ingredients for dowry death and the standard of suspicion at the charge framing stage.

ORDER :

1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 71/2022 whereby, the trial court has framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 304B & 498A IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.08.2020, respondent complainant submitted a written report before the SHO, P.S. Khinvsar, District Nagaur to the effect that marriage of his sister Kiran was solemnized with Rohit as per Hindu rites on 29.01.2020. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given to the family members of the groom but they were not contended with the dowry and therefore, started harassing his sister demanding more dowry. It was stated that 11.08.2020, she was turned out from her matrimonial home when she was 4-5 months pregnant. On account of the harassment, his sister committed suicide by hanging on 27.08.2020.

3. On this report, the police started investigation and after due investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioner for offence under Sections 304B, 498A IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagaur, where arguments on charge were heard and after hearing the arguments, learned trial court framed charges against the petitioners for aforesaid offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has committed an error of law in framing charges for offences under Section 498A and 304B IPC inasmuch as, according to the chargesheet submitted by the police, the deceased was in relationship with a boy named Deepak and she used to talk to him. The husband found about the relationship and asked the deceased not to talk to the boy. However, the deceased continued to talk to him and wanted to marry said Deepak. The petitioner informed the family members of deceased who took her to parental home but the deceased was adamant to marry Deepak. Since the deceased was 4-5 months pregnant, she decided to commit suicide, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is argued that there is neither any specific allegation with regard to demand of dowry nor any specific role has been assigned to the petitioner to attract the penal provisions of offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC as only omnibus allegations have been levelled against him. Thus, the trial court has not properly looked into the matter and therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that on perusal of statement of witnesses, a clear case of demand of dowry and harassment is made out against the petitioner and due to the harassment, the deceased committed suicide. It is further argued that the deceased wife died just after seven months of marriage, therefore, the revision petition may kindly be dismissed.

6. I have considered the rival arguments and perused the material available on record including the challan papers.

7. From the perusal of the challan papers, it is evident that the complainant Dinesh who is brother of deceased as well as Madan lal, father of deceased and Smt. Kanchan, mother of deceased and other witnesses have categorically mention that after marriage, the accused used to harass the deceased demanding dowry and fixed deposit in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs instead of Rs. 1 lac. The petitioner had also snatched her mobile and did not allow her to talk to parents. Since the death of the wife occurred within seven years of her marriage and she had been subjected to harassment by petitioner, therefore, the Court may presume that he had caused the dowry death.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Major Singh and another v. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 5 SCC 201 while considering the question with regard to conviction under Section 304B IPC has held as under:

“10. To sustain the conviction under Sect