IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

JUDGMENT

PRAHLAD VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No. 1118

of 2004 under Section 397 read with

section 401 Cr.P.C. against the

order dated Sept. 15, 2004 of

Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track)

No.2 Sikar in Sessions Case No. 26

of 2004 whereby trial court rejected

the application under section 319

Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance

against Pannalal @ Panna Ram, Kajodi

and Santosh.

Date of Order

: January 9, 2009

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

Mr. Neeraj Chandrana for the petitioner

Mr. Anoop Dhand for the respondents.

Mr.B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor.

BY THE COURT :

This revision petition has been filed

by the petitioner Prahlad, complainant,

against the order dated Sept. 15, 2004 of

Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Sikar in

Sessions Case No. 26 of 2004 whereby trial court

rejected the application under section 319

Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against Pannalal @

Panna Ram, Kajodi and Santosh.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this

revision petition are that on the basis

of the written report dated March 10,

2004 of the petitioner FIR No.27 of 2004

was registered with Police Station Losal

for commission of offences punishable

under sections 498 A, 304 B IPC and

Section 4 of the Dowery Prohibition Act

against accused persons Panna Ram, wife

of Panna Ram, Raju @ Raj Kumar and

daughter of Panna Ram. It was alleged in

the FIR that the accused named in the FIR

have harassed and thereby caused dowery

death of bride Sunita. After

registering aforesaid report, the police

started investigation into the matter and

statements of witnesses were record.

Mrig FIR No. 1/2004 registered under

section 174 Cr.P.C. with Police Station

Losal and its material was also included

in the case of crime FIR No. 27 of 2004.

After investigation the police filed

charge sheet dated May 20, 2004 for the

offence under sections 498 A and 306 IPC

in the court of Judicial Magistrate No.2

Sikar against accused respondent Raj

Kumar only. After filing the charge

sheet, the Judicial Magistrate took

cognizance of the offence against

accused Raj Kumar and committed him to

the Court of Sessions Judge Sikar, who

transferred case to the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track)

No.2 Sikar for trial. On June 14, 2004

the trial court heard the parties to the

case at the stage of sections 227 and 228

Cr.P.C. evaluated and weighed the

material available on record and formed

the opinion that the accused Raj Kumar

has subjected the deceased bride to

cruelty and harassment for demand of

dowery since the marriage dated May 4,

1998 and till soon before her death, he

continued such cruelty and harassment.

The trial court opined that due to such

cruelty and harassment the bride

committed suicide by hanging.

3. After framing charge against

accused Raju @ Raj Kumar the trial court

proceeded with the trial and recorded

statements of witnesses Gulab Chand

(PW.1), Shyam Sunder (PW.2), Prahlad

(PW.3), Bhagwati (PW.4), Mooli (PW.5),

Laxmi Narain (PW.6), Shaitana Ram (PW.7),

Mahesh (PW.8), Dr. Ratan Singh Ola

(PW.9), Dr. S.C. Jain (PW.10), Mool Chand

(PW.11), Manoj Chaudhary (PW.12), Jagdish

Prasad (PW.13), Surendra Singh (PW.14),

Sultan Singh (PW.15), Baluram (PW.16),

Jay Singh (17). Explanation of accused

was also recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C. Statements of defence witnesses

D.W.1 to D.w4 have also been recorded and

several documents have been produced and

exhibited in support of prosecution case

and defence case.

4. The complainant at the stage of

final arguments in the case, filed

application under section 319 Cr.P.C. on

August 28, 2004 making allegations of

demand of dowery against father in law

Panna Lal, mother in law Kajodi and

sister in law Santosh. In the application

it was stated that the witnesses in

t