Honble CHAUHAN, J.–Within two days of her marriage, Mamta, a young lady of 18 years, met her death at her matrimonial home. Her husband, the petitioner before us, has challenged the Order dated 6.6.05, passed by he Additional Sessions Judge, Neema Ka Thana Camp at Sri Madhopur, whereby he has been charged alternatively for offences under 302 and 304-B IPC.

(2). In brief, the facts of the case are that on 9.5.04 Mamta was married of to the Petitioner according to the Hindu rites. After her marriage, and accompanied by her nephew, Pradeep, she left for her matrimonial home `Guman Singh ki Dhani. She went missing during the night of 11/12.5.04, i.e. just two days after her marriage. Her in-laws, who sent two men from their village to her father, informed her father. Immediately, he rushed to her matrimonial home to find out about her whereabouts. On 12.5.04 itself, Sita Ram lodged a report at Police Station Khandela about the fact that his daughter is missing. He further claimed that her in-laws are not telling the truth. Therefore, he would like the police to investigate the case. On 14.5.04, the police asked Sita Ram to go back to Guman Singh ki Dhani as a dead body had been discovered in a well outside the in-laws house. When he reached there, the body was pulled out. It was Mamtas body. Therefore, on 14.5.04, Sita Ram lodged another report with the police about the death of his daughter. In the report he alleged that he was informed about her absence from the house on 12.5.04. He further claimed that when he reached the house of Mamtas in- law he asked the father-in-law, Prabhu Dayal and the husband, (the present petitioner) who told him that ``they dont know about her whereabouts. But in case he had given them a motorcycle and some more dowry, then they would have looked after the welfare of his daughter. On the basis of this report, the Police registered a formal FIR, FIR No. 64/2004 for offences under sections 304-B, 498-A IPC. After a thorough investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner and kept the investigation open against the other accused persons under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth to be referred to as `the Code for short). After hearing the Public Prosecutor, the Counsel for the complainant, and the Counsel for the accused, vide Order dated 6.6.05, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge alternatively framed the charges under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC against the Petitioner. Hence, this petition before us.

(3). Mr. S.R. Bajwa, Senior Advocate, the Counsel for the Petitioner, raised many contentions: firstly, that the framing of charge is not a mechanical exercise but is a judicious one. Relying on the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. (1979 (3) SCC 4) he has argued that while framing the charge the Court should act neither as the mouthpiece of the prosecution, nor as a post office for them. In order to examine whether the ingredients of a particular offence exist or not, the Court has a limited power to shift the evidence. In case only ``suspicion is around, or if two views of the evidence are possible, then the Court should discharge the accused. Only if ``grave suspicion is aroused, then charges should be framed.

(4). Secondly, the Court has not shifted through the evidence. It has mechanically passed the impugned Order. Hence, it has caused a great injustice to the Petitioner.

(5). Thirdly, in case the statements of the witnesses are properly read, then neither of the two offence–one under Section 302 or under 304-B IPC is made out. Since the essential ingredients are conspicuously missing, the learned Counsel was unjustified in framing the charges.

(6). Fourthly, when Sita Ram lodged the first report on 12.5.04, he did not even mention a word about the dowry demand for a motorcycle and for more dowries. He is absolutely silent on this point. He merely states that he has some suspicion about the in- laws. But when he lodged the second report

Click Here to Read the rest of this document