The judgment emphasized the need for specific instances of involvement in the crime, the requirement to prove overt acts beyond reasonable doubt, and the limited scope of discharging the accused at the initial stage.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the orders dated 20.01.2020 and 06.02.2020 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), constituted under the 14th Financial Commission, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 281 of 2019, (State of U.P. Vs. Arvind Kushwaha and others), under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, (arising out of Case Crime No. 281 of 2019).

3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of daughter of informant was solemnized with Arvind (brother of applicant no. 1) on 27.06.2018 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. The informant had given dowry as per his capacity, but the applicants along with other family members were harassing the deceased Poonam for non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand. On 17.05.2019, at about 06:00 p.m., informant's daughter Neha received a phone call from Arvind (husband of the deceased) on which information was given that her sister Poonam had committed suicide by hanging herself and she was admitted in the hospital. On receiving such an information, when the family members of the deceased reached the hospital, they found that Poonam had already expired. Therefore, an F.I.R. was lodged on 17.05.2019 against 8 persons who are husband as well as other family members alleging therein that the accused persons namely, Arvind, Ramesh Chandra, Savitri Devi, Smt. Manju, Smt. Vinita, Kumari Arti, Govind and Ravi has done to death informant's daughter. After lodging of the F.I.R., inquest proceedings were conducted and post-mortem was also conducted.

4. When the matter was investigated, statements of the informant and his son Rahul were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statements of other persons like Smt. Geeta Devi, Kumari Neha, Jitendra Kumar Dwivedi, Neeraj Kushwaha and Ravi Kushwaha was also recorded. After recording the statements of other witnesses of Panchayatnama, charge sheet had been submitted against accused persons on 01.07.2019.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 3 who are sister-in-law of the deceased was married way back in the year 1998 and 2011 respectively and are living separately. Therefore, there was no occasion of roping them with vague and general allegations in the F.I.R. which has been lodged by the informant. Since, the investigating agency without collecting any credible and convincing material had submitted a charge sheet against the applicants, therefore, a discharge application dated 02.01.2020 was moved and the same has been rejected vide order dated 20.01.2020, without marshelling and evaluating the material collected by the investigating agency. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that discharge application has been rejected in a casual manner without seeing that the material collected by the Investigating Officer does not show the involvement of the applicants in the incident which led to death of the deceased.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court passed in the case of K. Subba Rao and others Vs. State of Telangana reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452, wherein, it has been stated that court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

7. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207, wherein, it has been stated that for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts are attr