A charge can be framed against an accused person even on the basis of strong suspicion, and the circumstances in a matrimonial home that may have led to the death of a spouse can constitute abetment to suicide.

R. L. Anand, J.

1. By this order, I dispose of two criminal revisions No.948 of 1990 (Maya Devi V/s. State of Haryana) and 954 of 1998 (Sandeep V/s. State of Haryana) as both the revisions have arisen from the order dated 13-10-1990, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, who decided to frame charges u/ss.304-B and 498-A, IPC, and in the alternative u/s.306, IPC, against the present petitioners and others.

2. Fir No.120 dated 4-6-1990 u/ss.304-B/498-A/306, IPC, was registered in Police Station Sadar, Dabwali, District Sirsa, at the instance of Khiali Ram, father of the deceased Sharda, whose marriage was performed with Anil Kumar on 10-4-1983 and she expired within seven years of her marriage on 1-6-1990.

3. I need not incorporate the allegations levelled by Khiali Ram for the purpose of the disposal of the present revision but suffice to mention that on consideration of the allegations and other documents relied upon by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge decided to frame the charges under the above sections against the present petitioners along with Jagdev Singh, Anil Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Vidya Devi and Sandeep.

4. Ashok Kumar, one of the accused in this case filed a Cr1. Misc.2134- M of 1991, challenging the FIR No.120 dated 4-6-1990 itself and the said petition was disposed of by the High Court vide orders dated 12-3-1992. The said Ashok Kumar also filed a revision against the impugned order dated 13-10-1990 and the said revision was also allowed, keeping in view the findings given by Honble G. S. Chahal, J. (as he then was) vide his orders dated 12-3-1992. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge u/s.304-8, IPC, cannot sustain against the petitioner in view of the findings given by Honble G. S. Chahal. J. He also made an effort that the offence u/s.306 IPC, is not made out. Mr. Keer even went to the extent that no charge u/s.498-A IPC, could be framed by the learned trial court, keeping in view the vague allegations levelled against the accused.

5. On the contrary, Mr. Shailender Singh submits that if all the allowance is given to the petitioners of the order dated 12-3-1992 passed by Honble G. D. Chahal, J. , still the petitioners can be prosecuted for the offence u/s.306 read with sec. 498-A, IPC.

6. In this case Sharda died within 7 years of her marriage but her cause of death could not be determined. While disposing of the Criminal Miscellaneous filed by Ashok Kumar, Hon ble G. S. Chahal, J. , made the following observations: According to the report of the Chemical Examiner no poison was detected in the viscera and the doctor, on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, gave the opinion that no definite opinion could be given as to the cause of death. In view of those reports, the death of Sharda cannot be described to be unnatural. No dowry death has, thus occurred in the present case. T For the reasons given in the said judgment, the Hontble Judge also gave benefit to Ashok Kumar for the offence u/s.498-A, IPC. However, there is no discussion in the said order dated 12-3-1992 with regard to the offence u/s.306, IPC.

7. Since, a positive finding has been given by the High Court which has taken into consideration the allegations of the complainant to the effect that the offence u/s.304-8, IPC, was not made out. Therefore, the benefit of those observations has also to go to the present two petitioners. Resultantly, the charges against the present two petitioners cannot sustain in the eyes of law u/s.304-8, IPC, and the same is hereby quashed and the directions are given to the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, to delete the charge u/s.304-8, IPC, against the present petitioners.

8. I do not subscribe to the argument raised by Mr. Keer with regard to the offences u/ss.498-A and 306, IPC. What is abetment will be question of fact. Under what circumstances, the death had taken place, again, will be question to be determined. If circumstances are created in the matrimonial ho