[2026:RJ-JD:4162]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 581/2025 Reema W/o Shri Vikas, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Neva Police Station Baap District Phaiodi Rajasthan, At Present Conservator Of Forest, Jhalawar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat,Dy.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

22/01/2026

1. By way of filing the instant revision petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi in Sessions Case No. 03/2025 (State of Rajasthan v. Reema), arising out of FIR No. 40/2021, Police Station Bap, District Phalodi, whereby the learned Trial Court has illegally and mechanically framed charge against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC, without proper appreciation of the material on record and in disregard of the settled principles governing framing of charge.

2. Brief facts of the present are that on 11.02.2021, on the basis of the Parcha Bayan of the petitioner, an FIR was registered at Police Station Bap, District Phalodi. In the said statement, the petitioner stated that she was married in the year 2014 to one Vikas S/o Daula Ram, resident of Neva Kanasar. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born, namely a male child, Vihan, aged about 2½ years, and a female child, Kashvi, aged about 06 months.

3. It was further stated that soon after the solemnization of the marriage, her husband Vikas, father-in-law Daula Ram, and mother-in-law Varju started harassing her. The petitioner also stated that both she and her husband were posted as Deputy Conservator of Forest, and that her monthly salary was regularly withdrawn by her husband. She alleged that on 10.02.2021, she was subjected to harassment by her husband and in-laws. According to her, her husband remained angry and dissatisfied on the ground that a female child had been born. Consequently, on 11.02.2021, at around 9:00 PM, she was brutally harassed by her husband and in-laws, during which her husband allegedly pressed the neck of the female child, resulting in her death. When the petitioner attempted to rescue her daughter, all three accused allegedly administered poison forcibly into her mouth, due to which she started vomiting continuously and became weak and nervous. In that condition, she made a call to her father using the mobile phone of her father-in- law. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital by her husband, where she received treatment and regained normalcy. However, her female child had already passed away. Owing to the trauma and apprehension from the accused persons, the petitioner stated in the FIR that she did not wish to reside with her husband and in-laws and sought permission to stay at her parental home.

4. On the basis of the said information, investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the petitioner’s statement by way of dying declaration as well as her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein she reiterated and remained consistent with the allegations initially made in the FIR. The investigating agency visited the place of occurrence and undertook other necessary investigative steps to collect corroborative and incriminating material, including the collection of samples of vomit and the alleged poisonous substance found at the spot. The postmortem report of the deceased child was also obtained and made part of the charge-sheet. Statements of several witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation.

5. It is relevant to mention that at the time of filing the charge-

sheet, the Investigating Officer, despite the petitioner’s statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her Parcha Bayan, which were recorded contemporaneously with the incident, exonerated the husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law of the petitioner. Surprisingly, the Inves