The court emphasized the importance of considering the probative value of the material on record and the need to determine whether a charge is to be framed against the accused or the accused is to be discharged, based on the facts of each case.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J. - The petitioners have challenged order dated 18.1.2021 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby the petitioners have been charged for offences under Section 302/34 IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 7.6.2020 a written docket was received in Police Station, Satwari whereby an information was received that a woman, namely, Mst. Rekha Sharma wife of the petitioner no. 1-Chander Kant Tiwari had fallen from the stairs of the house and had died. On the basis of this report, proceedings under Section 174 CrPC were initiated. After conclusion of the proceedings, it was revealed that the deceased-Mst. Rekha Sharma was married to the petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari about eight years ago and after the marriage the petitioner used to torture her. It was also found that on 22.4.2020, the mother of the deceased had invited her to attend Satsang. The petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari did not allow her to go. In the morning of 23.4.2020, when the deceased was insisting for going to her parental house, a quarrel took place between the deceased and her husband in which some relatives of the husband also participated. As a result of this quarrel, the deceased died. Accordingly FIR No. 116/2020 for offences under Section 302/34 IPC was registered and the investigation of the case was set into motion.

3. After investigation of the case, it was established that the deceased was married to the petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari about eight years ago and out of this wedlock, one male baby was born who is aged about six years. It was also established that the petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari used to harass the deceased on account of demands of dowry and he used to give beatings to her. On 24.4.2020, a satsang was organized in the parental house of the deceased but the petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari did not allow his deceased-wife to participate in the said function. On 23.4.2020, a scuffle took place between petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari and the deceased on the said issue. The other two petitioners, namely, Sunehela Devi, the mother in law of the deceased and Sunita Tiwari, the sister in law of the deceased also participated in the quarrel and they started beating the deceased. The petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari is stated to have given a blow of rod on the head of the deceased which led to her death.

4. The challan was laid before the trial court and vide the impugned order, the learned trial court after hearing the parties and after considering the material on record framed charges for offences under section 302/34 IPC against the petitioners.

5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that even if the prosecution story is to be believed still then the petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari cannot be charged for offence under section 302 IPC and at worst it can be a case of offence punishable under section 304 IPC as there is no material on record to even remotely suggest that there had been pre-meditation on the part of the petitioner to commit the murder of the deceased. Learned Senior counsel has further argued that in the case of petitioners no. 2 and 3, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased, no offence is made out from the material on record. Learned Senior counsel has also submitted that as per the allegations made in the chargesheet, petitioner no. 2 is alleged to have thrown hot water on the body of the deceased but the postmortem report of the deceased does not support this version. He has further submitted that so far as the role of the sister in law i.e., petitioner no. 3 is concerned, even as per the prosecution case, the same is confined to holding of arm of the deceased which, according to the learned Senior counsel, does not in any manner suggest that she had participated in the alleged crime.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which are applicable to the insta