IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Revision No. 2771 of 2009

Date of decision: 20.4.2010

Giani Ram

......Petitioner

Vs.

Tarun Dahiya and others

...Respondents

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.

PRESENT:

Mr.Naresh Kumar Sanghi Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr.Gurcharan Dass,Advocate,

for respondent No.1.

Mr.Y.P.Singh, Advocate,

for respondent No.2.

Mr.S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,

for respondent No.3.

****

ORDER

The present revision petition has been filed against order dated

17.9.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide which an application

under Section 216 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the prosecution to add

charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC has been dismissed.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that deceased Asha was married

with accused Tarun Dahiya in the year 2007 and a daughter was born out of

the said wedlock. As per case of the prosecution, accused Tarun (husband)

Durga Dass and Mahenderwati (parents-in-law) and Renu (married sister

-in-law) used to maltreat, harass and beat Asha with cruelty for or in

connection with demand of dowry and they were also doubting her

character. Although the matter was settled on many occasions but they

continued treating her with cruelty. The father of the deceased was stated to

Crl. Revision No. 2771 of 2009 [2]

have managed a separate rental accommodation for Asha and her husband

at Rohtak. On 16.1.2008, Tarun, the husband of the deceased,

telephonically informed Giani Ram, the father of the deceased that Asha

had committed suicide by hanging. On receipt of information, the

complainant Giani Ram and other persons went to the house of accused and

on inquiry, it revealed to them that either Asha was hanged after killing by

all the accused or she had committed suicide being fed up with cruel

behaviour of the accused.

On the basis of complaint made by father of the deceased, FIR

No. 11 dated 16.1.2008 was registered against Tarun Kumar (husband)

Durga Das and Mahenderwati (parents-in-law) and Renu (sister-in-law) for

offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC at Police Station Urban Estate,

Rohtak.

During investigation, accused Mahenderwati and Renu were

found innocent and they were kept in column No.2. Police Report under

Section 173 Cr.P.,C. was submitted against Tarun and his father Durga

Dass.

The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial vide

order dated 24.4.2008. Both the accused were charge-sheeted for

commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A/3-4-B IPC vide

order dated 8.5.2008. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were

recorded. Subsequently, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was

moved on behalf of the prosecution for summoning of additional evidence

which was allowed and Dr.Sushma Jain PW-4 was ordered to be

summoned for her examination vide order dated 22.4.2009. On completion

Crl. Revision No. 2771 of 2009 [3]

of additional evidence on 17.8.2009, another application for framing of

additional charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was also

moved by the prosecution on the ground that as per statement of Dr.Sushma

Jain, there was a ligature mark around and the neck was constricted and the

cause of death was due to above-said injury on the neck besides three other

injuries on other parts of the body which constitute an offence under

Section 302 IPC.

Notice of the application was issued to the opposite side and in

response thereto, reply was also filed. As per reply, no charge under

Section 302 IPC was made out as per post mortem report and the statement

of Dr.Sushma Jain PW-4 as charge under Section 304-B IPC had already

been framed and there was no requirement to frame charge under Section

302 IPC. Moreover, nothing was there in the FSL report and