At the initial stage of deciding whether the accused ought to be discharged, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged. The accused has no right to produce any material at the stage of framing of the charge, and the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into at that stage.

Headnote:
Dowry Demand - Criminal Revision - Sections 498A, 304B IPC, Section 3/4 D.P. Act - [Sections 498A, 304B IPC, Section 3/4 D.P. Act] - The court discussed the legal approach to be adopted at the time of framing of the charge or at the time of deciding whether the accused ought to be discharged. The court emphasized that at the initial stage, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage. The court also highlighted that the accused has no right to produce any material at the stage of framing of the charge and that the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into at that stage. The court refused the discharge of the accused as it found a prima facie case against them and no justifiable ground to set aside the impugned order refusing the discharge of the accused.
Fact of the Case:

The daughter of the opposite party was married and subsequently murdered due to non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand. The revisionists, who are the deceased's Jethani and Jeth, claimed innocence and that the deceased committed suicide. They moved a discharge application, which was rejected by the court below.
Finding of the Court:

The court found a prima facie case against the accused and refused the discharge as it did not find any justifiable ground to set aside the impugned order refusing the discharge of the accused.
Issues: The court was called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence, evaluate the same, and consider the material collected by the investigating agency. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution was questioned, and false implication was pleaded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that at the initial stage, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged. The accused has no right to produce any material at the stage of framing of the charge, and the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into at that stage.
Final Decision: The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

2. The revisionists have preferred this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 02.01.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-O.A.W.), Jhansi in Case No. 663 of 2020, (State of U.P. Vs. Kamal Yadav and others), under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, whereby the application U/s 227 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionists has been rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the daughter of opposite party no.2, namely, Pooja Yadav was solemnized with Kamal Yadav on 07.12.2019 according to Hindu Rituals and Rites. At the time of marriage, the opposite party no.2 gave dowry as per his capacity. However, after sometime, the family members of her in-laws started mentally and physically harassing the daughter of opposite party no.2 for demanding additional dowry demand of Rs. 5 lacs. On 24.07.2020, the daughter of opposite party no.2 was murdered by the accused persons due to non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand, therefore, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 25.07.2020 against as many as seven named accused persons including the present revisionists under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Premnagar, District-Jhansi. Thereafter, the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 25.07.2020, in which, the cause of death of the deceased is Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and the viscera was preserved for chemical analysis and as per the Viscera Report dated 21.09.2020, no poison was found.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that during course of investigation, on 29.07.2020, when the concerned police has searched the room of deceased, a suicide note of the deceased, namely, Pooja Yadav was found in her room, in which, she clearly stated that she committed suicide. It has further been submitted that the revisionists are Jethani and Jeth of the deceased and they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case as the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself and subsequently died on the way before reaching the hospital. It has further been submitted that the revisionists have been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.11.2020 passed in Cri. Misc. Bail Application No. 37394 of 2020.

5. It has further been submitted that the deceased is short tempered lady and after marriage, she pressurized her husband to live separately from their family but the husband, Kamal Yadav was not ready to live separately so she threatened to teach him a lesson and committed suicide by hanging herself. It has further been submitted that the revisionists 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 revisionists, therefore, a discharge application dated 21.12.2020 was moved and the same has been rejected vide order dated 02.01.2021 by the court below, without marshelling and evaluating the material collected by the investigating agency. Learned counsel for the revisionists 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 revisionists in the incident which led to death of the deceased.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisionists and states that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 02.01.2021 passed by the concerned court below, by which, discharge application of the revisionists has been rejected. So far as the argument placed by the learned counsel for the re