The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused in criminal cases, along with the interpretation of 'evidence' in the provision and the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Mittal, J. - Criminal Revision No. 3369 of 2019

The petitioner in this case is the complainant. He is the brother of deceased Rizwana, whose death led to the registration of the present FIR. The accused in the FIR are Mohammad Nadeem (husband), Shakila (mother-in-law), Abdul Shakur (father-in-law), Mohammad Naseem (brother-in-law i.e. younger brother of the husband), Jamila (Jethani) and Seefan (maternal aunt i.e. sister of Shakila mother-in-law).

2. Rizwana got married with Mohammad Nadeem on 22.01.2018. She died on 14.06.2019 and thereafter FIR No. 60 dated 15.06.2019 was registered at Police Station City-II, Malerkotla, District Sangrur under Section 304-B IPC. After investigation, the police presented the challan only against Mohammad Nadeem (husband) and Shakila (mother-in-law). Charges have been famed under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC or in alternative under Section 302 IPC. During the course of the trial, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning the father-in-law, brother-in-law, Jethani and Seefan as additional accused but the same was rejected vide order dated 26.11.2019. The said order is under challenge in the present revision petition.

3. According to the FIR, at the time of marriage dowry was demanded beyond the financial capacity of the complainant and his family members. The dowry included a motorcycle make Hero Passion Pro. However, the accused persons were dis-satisfied with the same and they demanded a Bullet motorcycle. Since the demand could not be met on account of financial incapacity, Rizwana was harassed continuously and beaten up. On more than two occasions deceased was sent home and panchayats had to be convened for her rehabilitation. The harassment increased as time passed because Rizwana was also unable to bear a child. On 14.06.2019, the complainant received a phone call from the deceased and she sounded very upset. Later at night, he was informed that Rizwana had died. The complainant went to her house alongwith his father, one Haji Mohammad and other residents of his Mohalla including some relatives. There she was found hanging from the ceiling fan in the Chobara constructed on the first floor. The police was informed and FIR was registered.

4. As mentioned hereinabove, the police challaned only Mohammad Nadeem (husband) and Shakila (mother-in-law). During the course of the trial, four prosecution witnesses were examined before the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed. These were PW-1 Mohammad Munir (complainant - brother of the deceased), PW-2 Hazi Shamshad Ali (one of the persons who went to the house of the deceased alongwith the complainant upon receipt of news of her death), PW-3 Mohd. Mushtaq (father of deceased) and PW-4 Dr. Sukhwinder Singh Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Sangrur. Their testimony has been relied upon for summoning the additional accused.

5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not press this petition against Seefan - respondent No. 5 (maternal aunt i.e. sister of Shakila).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the evidence of PW-2 Hazi Shamshad Ali as well as the evidence of PW-3 Mohammad Mushtaq, it has been established that Rizwana was being harassed on account of dowry. Panchayats had been convened on more than two occasions for her rehabilitation as she had been beaten and thrown out of the matrimonial home. Active participation of the brother in law, Jethani and father-in-law in her harassment and death stands established. The evidence of PW-4 establishes that this is a case of murder. The death took place in the matrimonial house where the persons sought to be summoned as additional accused also reside. Thus, they should have been summoned as they are equally responsible for the death of Rizwana. Being residents of the same house, they had special knowledge of the goings on in the house and under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the