Allahabad High Court
Sangeeta vs State Of U.P. And Antoher on 28 August, 2017
Bench: Harsh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R
Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3250 of 2011
Revisionist :- Sangeeta
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Antoher
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashwani Kumar Awasthi,Manish Tiwary
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.
The present revision has been filed against the order dated 05.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2008 (Stae Versus Govind and others), summoning the revisionist for trial together with another accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the revisionist is Jethani of the deceased; that the revisionist was falsely implicated in the F.I.R with the general allegations; that the revisionist never made any demand of dowry from the deceased nor treated her with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry nor can be beneficiary of the T.V & Gold Chain allegedly demanded as dowry; that the marriage between Govind and deceased did take place on 07.05.2000 and not in the year 2001 as stated by the prosecution witnesses; that the prosecution witnesses have not given any particular date or month of the marriage and have simply stated that marriage was solemnized in the year 2001, so that the incident in question regarding death of the deceased may be covered within the period of seven years from the date of marriage; that since the death of the deceased - Poonam has taken place beyond seven years of marriage, the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C is not made out; that no application for summoning the revisionist was ever moved by the first informant and at the time of final disposal of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge instead of passing the judgment has suo-moto passed the impugned order summoning the revisionist for trial together with the other accused; that there is no prima-facie evidence of the offence against the revisionist as she is said to have informed the first informant of the missing of the deceased; the the impugned order is against the facts and law and is liable to be set aside; that in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others; (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 92 the Apex Court has held that for summoning an accused for the offences, under Section 319 Cr.P.C, there must be more than prima-facie case and the degree of satisfaction for invoking Section 319 should be of more than a prima-facie case as exercised at time of framing charge.
Per contra, learned A.G.A supported the impugned order and contended that the unnatural death of deceased has taken place within seven years of marriage and her half burnt body has been found in fields; that it is wrong to say that the death of Poonam had taken place beyond the period of seven years of marriage; that the date of marriage is 07.05.2000 as given by the defence witnesses is wrong and incorrect and false date has been set up in order to avoid the conviction under Section 304-B I.P.C; that in this case the revisionist was also named in the F.I.R, and the Investigating Officer upon investigation and on finding sufficient evidence of offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act submitted charge-sheet against all the named accused except the revisionist; that there are also allegations of illicit relationship between the revisionist and the husband of the deceased apart from which the prosecution witnesses have stated on oath that there was demand of T.V & Gold Chain as dowry and her husband - Govind, father-in-law Chingi, brother-in-law Nageshwar and sister-in-law Sangeeta (Jethani) used to treat her with cruelty for non-fulfillment demand of dowry; that there is sufficient evidence on record which shows that there is possibility of conviction of revisionist for the offences alongwith the other accused persons, who were charge-sheeted; that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C can be exercised by the Court suo-moto and no application by prosecution is necessary; that stage of final disposal of trial instead of, after analyzation of evidence on record and on finding sufficient prima-facie evidence against the revisionist also has rightly instead of passing the judgment has passed impugned order.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the trial court in his detailed order passed, after considering the entire evidence recorded during the trial has found more than prima-facie evidence of offences against the revisionist which if not rebutted by any cogent evidence may lead to the conviction of revisionist who has been summoned as an accused.
Upon submission of charge-sheet with regard to offences of dowry death under Section 304-B I.P.C, the trial is pending against other accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 of I.P.C and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Mere for the reason that the defence witnesses have given the date of marriage to be 07.05.2000, which is not admitted to prosecution, at this stage, it may not be believed or presumed that the death of deceased did take place beyond the period of seven years from the date of marriage while the prosecution has specifically stated that the marriage was solemnized in 2001. It is noteworthy that the first informant belongs to labour class and is a villager and has not been able to give any specific date of marriage but has specifically stated about the marriage of deceased in 2001, and the above fact is to be decided at the time of final disposal of trial. In the case of Hardeep Singh (supra), the Apex Court has held that the word "Appears" under Section 319 Cr.P.C can not be understood to be synonymous of word "Proof" of offence and there must be more than prima-facie evidence of offence, which if not rebutted may lead to conviction of the person summoned as an additional accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that there is material evidence of prosecution witness on record, which shows that the revisionist has played active role in unnatural death of deceased within seven years of marriage which if remains unrebutted and the same is sufficient for conviction of the revisionist for the offences.
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the revisionist has failed to show any illegality, irregularity, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned order. The revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is dismissed accordingly.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Let a copy of this order be sent to court below, for expeditious disposal of trial in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 28.08.2017.
Vinod.
