Point of Law: Dowry Death - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - It is true that summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be resorted to in a cavalier or casual manner.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The instant revision has been preferred to set-aside the impugned order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC-1, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 2019 (State Versus Sanjaydeep and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1587 of 2018 under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C., Police Station Highway, District -Mathura whereby the application filed by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed.

3. Factual matrix of the case are that with respect to dowry death of the daughter of the first informant, first information report has been lodged wherein husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jethani) were roped in for committing crime of cruelty and harassment with the victim for demand of dowry. It is averred in the first information report that marriage of the daughter of the first informant was solemnized with Sanjaydeep on 30.11.2016 in which about Rs.50 Lakhs were expended but subsequently, the victim was harassed for additional dowry amounting to Rs.20 Lakhs. It is further averred that although with respect to harassment and cruelty for demand of dowry earlier one incident took place, the same was amicably settled after intervention of the elders in the family. Thereafter, the daughter of the first informant went to her matrimonial home along with her in-laws on 18.10.2018. He got information that his daughter had been admitted in Nayati Hospital, Mathura where she, subsequently, succumbed to injuries on 19.10.2018.

4. After due investigation, the investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet dated 5.2.2019 in which husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law were arraigned as accused. The present revisionist Smt. Aarti was not arraigned as accused in the charge-sheet. Feeling aggrieved, informant has moved an application (paper no. 41Kha) under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the present revisionist and her husband Jaideep Saraswat, who are Jethani and Jeth, to face the trial along with three other o-accused against whom the charge-sheet was submitted. After going through the record, the trial court vide impugned order dated 18.2.2021 has allowed the application (paper no. 41Kha) under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the present applicant to face the trial along with other co-accused under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that on the date of incident, the present revisionist was not present on the place of occurrence which is clearly evident from the report of CDR with respect to location of mobile numbers of Jaideep Saraswat and Smt. Aarti Saraswat which was considered by the Investigating Officer in submitting the chargesheet. He also submits that the statement of loco pilot, who was piloting the train, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not been considered by the court below wherein he stated that on the date of incident he was piloting the train from Gangapur City to Tughlakabad and all of sudden one lady came on the mid of the truck and collided with the train. It is further submitted that on 17.10.2018 she left for her parental house and the said incident took place on 18.10.2019, therefore, the present appellant is not in a position to explain as to why and how such incident took place. It is submitted that the evidence which have been collected by the investigating officer during investigation have illegally been ignored by the trial court. There is no clinching and unimpeachable evidence on record to prove the complicity of the present appellants in the commission of crime, as mentioned in the FIR, beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brijendra Singh & others vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2017(7) SCC 7