The court upheld the decision to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., confirming that sufficient prima facie evidence warranted trial based on allegations of dowry-related harassment and maltreatment leading to death.

JUDGMENT :

Kirti Singh, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed qua petitioner Sukhwinder Rai, and he has been summoned to face trial as additional accused under in case FIR No. 33 dated 17.4.2014 under Sections 304-B and 201 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur.

Brief facts of the case

2. The present FIR was registered under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC on the basis of a statement made by the complainant-respondent No.2, who is the father of the deceased alleging that his daughter had suffered maltreatment and harassment at the hands of her in-laws due to demands of dowry, which ultimately led to her death. The present petitioner has been nominated in the instant FIR being the jeth (brother-in-law) of deceased daughter of the complainant, who was married to the younger brother of the petitioner namely Varinder Rai on 31.3.2013. Purusant to the registration of the present FIR, the matter was inquired and the petitioner was exonerated in the present case. Subsequently, the trial qua the other accused continued and on 23.9.2015, the complainant-respondent No. 2 was examined as PW-1 and on the basis of his testimony, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution for summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused. Vide the impugned order dated 4.3.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, the said application was partly allowed and the petitioner was summoned to face trial as an additional accused in the instant FIR. Hence, the present petition.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the elder brother-in-law (jeth) of the deceased, who at the time of the alleged occurrence, was residing separately, along with his wife and minor son aged about 2½ years, from his brother Varinder Rai (husband of the deceased). He further submits, that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are general, vague and omnibus in nature. Further, PW-1 complainant Harmesh Lal in his examination-in-chief, had only reiterated the allegations as made in the FIR, wherein it was stated that on the day of the alleged occurrence, i.e. on 17.4.2014, when he made a telephonic call to his daughter and asked her as to who was present in the house, thereupon she replied that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were present in the house and were quarreling with her. Learned counsel submits that even if the said version is considered to be true, though the same has not been independently corroborated by any evidence and is in the nature of hearsay, the same indicates that it is not even prosecution’s own case that on the day of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was present in the matrimonial house of the deceased. As such, the petitioner should not be allowed to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (i) Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab reported in 2013(3) SCC 92, (ii) Juhru versus Karim reported in 2023(5) SCC 406 , and (iii) Mirza Iqbal @ Golu versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 340.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2

4. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, and the same is a well-reasoned and sound order passed after a thorough appreciation of the facts of the case. The sequence of events leading to the summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused underscores the systematic cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased at her matrimonial home, in which the petitioner played a significant role. The marriage of the daught