The legal principle established in the judgment is the application of the standard of test, proof, and judgment at the stage of charge in a trial before a Court of Session, and the interpretation of legal provisions related to dowry harassment and abetment of suicide.

ORDER :

1. These revisions are interlinked, as preferred against the order-dated 26-8-2004, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 83/2004. By that order, Amrish, the petitioner in Cr. R. No. 1445/2004, was charged with the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code whereas all the four co-accused the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in Cr. R. No. 1400/2004 were discharged. Legality, propriety and correctness of the order of discharge have not been challenged by the State but by Dr. R.K. Sharma, the father of Archana (since deceased).

2. Marriage of Archana was solemnized with Amrish on 19-11-1995. In the wedlock, a daughter, named as Anukriti, was born. At the relevant point of time, Archana was living with Amrish and Anukriti at 13, Press Complex, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal whereas all other accused who stand discharged by the trial Judge, were residing at E-4, 45 Bungalow, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.). On 28-9-2003 at about 5.35 p.m. Archana was takento Jaiprakash Hospital, Bhopal in dead condition by Amrish. According to him, Archana had committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan. In the light of the intimation, initially, a marg (death case) was registered at P.S. M.P. Nagar, Bhopal. However, on the following day i.e. 29-9-2003, Dr. R.K. Sharma, the revisionist in Cr. R. 1400/2004, suspecting the murder of his daughter viz. Archana lodged a report. Thereupon, a case, under sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered. After inquest proceedings, dead body of Archana was sent to the Medico Legal Institute, Bhopal for post-mortem. It was performed by a team of doctors headed by Dr. D.K. Satpathy, the Director of the Institute. The cause of Archana's death was ascertained as asphyxia as a result of hanging. In response to a query made by the Investigating Officer, two members of the team namely Dr. D.K. Satpathy and Dr. C.S. Jain, opined that Archana's death was suicidal in nature. During investigation, three letter written by Archana to her parents in the year 1996 were seized and referred to Handwriting Expert along with her specimen handwriting available in a register. In turn, he gave the opinion that the questioned letters were authored by Archana only. Ultimately, charge-sheet, for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was put up against Amrish, his parents namely Lajja Shankar and Smt. Meera, younger brother Shirish and Sangeeta, the wife of Shirish in the Court of Smt. Rashmi Agrawal, ACJM, Bhopal, who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.

3. A bare perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned trial Judge had proceeded to discharge all the four relatives of Amrish for the following reasons:-

(i) The statutory presumption, under section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, was not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.

(ii) None of the relatives arraigned as accused was residing with the deceased viz. Archana.

(iii) Even if the allegation that a demand of Rs. 10 lacs as capital investment for publication of newspaper was made during the period upto 1999 is taken at its face value, no cognizance of the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code could be taken after the prescribed period of 3 years.

(iv) The demand of Rs. 10 lacs as dowry was allegedly made during the period when Sangeeta was not a member of Lajja Shankar's family in view of the fact that she and Shirish got married in the year 2000 only.

(v) Mere allegation regarding demand of Rs. 10 lacs as dowry in absence of corresponding assertion in the letters written by Archana or in the police statements of her parents and relatives as to consequent harassment and torture was not sufficient to constitute the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against them.

However, while placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Brij Lal vs. Prem Chand, AIR 1989 SC 1661 and State of