The court emphasized that mere allegations are insufficient to compel individuals to face trial; sufficient evidence is required for arraignment under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

1. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the private respondent – Shri Suresh Kumbhat and Shri Sheetal Kumbhat and the learned Public Prosecutor as well as gone through the order under challenge passed by the Court of first instance and the Court of Revision and also gone through the niceties of the matter.

3. Bereft of elaborate details, succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a prosecution was launched at the instance of respondent No.2 for subjecting her to cruelty and maltreatment during her matrimony. Though in the FIR, she levelled allegations of causing injuries and forcibly making her to swallow contaminated/poisonous substances and the role of the petitioners were also mentioned, however, after conducting thorough investigation, due reasons were given by the Agency and only the husband of the respondent No.2 was charge-sheeted for committing offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 325 of IPC. It is notable that the conclusion of the Investigating Agency was never made to challenge by the complainant party or by the State of Rajasthan. It is also noteworthy that no application under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the respondents. After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned trial Court proceeded to hear the parties on the question of charge. Vide order dated 25.11.2017, the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 498-A, 323 and 325 of IPC. After commencement of the trial, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and at that juncture, an application came to be moved on behalf of the respondent No.2 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for arraigning the petitioners also as an accused party in light of the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Judge allowed the application. The another application moved by her under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed though no challenge has been made ever by any of the parties.

4. Aggrieved by the order booking the petitioners by taking resort to Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners made a challenge by moving a criminal revision petition, however, the same has been dismissed and as such both the orders are under assail before this Court.

5. I have minutely gone through the niceties of the matter, the statement of the victim recorded during trial, the police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C and the statements of neighbours of the matrimonial home viz. Lakma Ram and Nimba Ram and others so also gone through the injury report. This Court has noticed serious incongruence and major contradiction in the statement of the respondent No.2. When her statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. during the course of the investigation, she narrated the incident of administering her poison in the following manner:-

“On 19.02.2017 between 1.00 P.M. - 2.00 P.M., her husband Praveen Singh forcibly poured a bottle of poison into her mouth and he also beat her by fist and kicks.”

6. When she was examined in the trial, she by making material improvement, deposed these following lines:-

“On 19.02.2017, she was beaten up by her in-laws and her husband Praveen Singh gave her a lathi blow. Father-in- law - Ram Singh, mother-in-law - Chail Kanwar and the petitioners caught hold of her then told that her husband also holding her. Her husband made her to swallow poison and father-in-law, mother-in-law and the petitioners kept holding her.”

7. A glimpse over the two statements suggesting this Court that sufficient material is not there to book the petitioners as accused and there is no such material, for which, they should be forced to face the rigor of trial. Putting any person and compelling him to attend the Court proceedings certainly infringes his fundamental right. The issuance of process for joining the trial should not be taken lightly. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. reported in 1998 SC 128 expounded that