Allahabad High Court
Pramod Tyagi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 7 May, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85149
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3054 of 2023
Revisionist :- Pramod Tyagi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Bhushan Tiwari,G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. J.P. Mishra, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. C.B. Tiwari, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2.
2. Perused the record.
3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 6.5.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2021 (State Vs. Vikas), under Section 498-A, 306 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Deoband, District- Saharanpur arising out of Case Crime No. 688 of 2019, whereby application dated 16.3.2023 filed by prosecution (first informant/revisionist) under section 319 CRPC (paper no. 123 kha) for summoning the prospective accused i.e. opposite parties-2 to 5 to face trial in aforementioned sessions trial, has been rejected.
4. Record shows that, an FIR dated 25.8.2019 was lodged by first informant Pramod i.e revisionist herein and was registered as Case Crime No. 0688 of 2019 under sections 498A, 302IPC and section 3/4 DP act, P.S.-Deoband, District-Saharanpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R,, 5 persons namely, Vikas, Devendra, Smt. Kamlesh, Anuj, Rakhi have been nominated as named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that marriage of sweety, (daughter of first informant) was solemnized with Vikas on 10.3.2008. At the time of marriage, sufficient amount of goods and dowry were given. However, the in-laws of the daughter of first informant were dissatisfied with the same. On account of above repeatedly mental cruelty was committed upon daughter of first informant. Subsequently, physical and mental cruelty is also alleged to have been committed upon the daughter of first informant on account of insufficient dowry. Unfortunately, no issue was born from the aforesaid wedlock. Inspite of various steps taken by the relatives of the first informant, there was no change in the conduct of named accused. Ultimately, the F.I.R. concludes with the recital that the daughter of first informant was put to death by the named accused.
6. After aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Investigating officer completed the preliminaries i.e. recovery of dead body, inquest of the body of deceased, postmortem of the body of deceased and preparation of the site plan.
7. It is opposite to mention here that in the opinion of autopsy surgeon who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased the cause of death of deceased could not be ascertained. Consequently, Visra of the deceased was preserved. As per visra report, a foreign chemical compound namely organo chloro insecticide was found in the body parts of the deceased send for chemical examination. Investigating officer during course of investigation, examined first informant and other witnesses under section 161 CRPC. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of only one of the named accused i.e Vikas is established in the crime in question. He accordingly submitted the police report in terms of section 173(2) Cr.P.C. whereby and whereunder named accused Vikas has been charge sheeted under sections 498A and 306 IPC, whereas the other named accused were exculpated.
8. Upon submission of aforesaid police report, cognizance was taken upon same by concerned magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under section 190(1)(b) CrP.C. Since offence complained of is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, resultantly, the concerned magistrate committed the case to the court of sessions in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C.
9. In view of above Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2021 (State Vs. Vikas), under Section 498-A, 306 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Deoband, District- Saharanpur came to be registered, which is now said to be pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur.
10. Concerned Sessions Judge framed charges against charge sheeted accused who denied the same and pleaded innocence. Resultantly the trial procedure commenced.
11. Prosecution in discharge of its burden to bring home the charges framed against charge sheeted accused adduced first informant Pramod Tyagi as PW.1. After the statement-in-chief and examination-in-chief of this witness was recorded, prosecution filed an application dated 10.3.2023 under section 319 Cr.P.C alleging therein that since as per the deposition of P.W.1 the complicity of named but not charge-sheeted accused is also established in the crime in question, therefore, they be also summoned to face trial in aforesaid sessions case. This application came to be registered as paper no, 23 kha.
12. It appears that no objections were filed by charge -sheeted accused to the aforesaid application. Court below upon appraisal and appreciation of the allegations made in aforesaid application in the light of deposition of PW1 Pramod came to the conclusion that no good ground is made out to summon the prospective accused i.e opposite parties- 2 to 5 herein to face trial. Consequently, Court below vide order dated 6.5.2023 rejected the application filed by prosecution/first informant i.e. revisionist herein under section 319 CrP.C.
13. Thus, feeling aggrieved by above, revisionist who is first informant has now approached this court by means of present criminal revision.
14. Learned counsel for revisionist contents that order impugned in present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and therefore liable to be set aside by this court. To Buttress his submission, he has invited the attention of Court to the statement-in-chief/examination-in-chief of PW1 Pramod Tyagi, copy of which is on record as annexure-7 to the affidavit filed in support of present revision. With reference to above, it is urged by learned counsel for revisionist that upon perusal of the deposition of PW1 as recorded before court below, it is evident that complicity of prospective accused in the crime in question is fully established. As such court below has erred in law and fact in rejecting the application under section 319, Cr.P.C filed by revisionist.
15. Learned counsel for revisionist next submits that prospective accused i.e opposite parties-2- 5 herein namely,
(1) Devendra S/o Jagdish
(2) Smt. Kamlesh W/o Devendra
(3) Anuj S/o Devendra
(4) Rakhi W/o Anuj
are inmates of the house in which the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred. Consequently, they have special knowledge of the same. As such burden is upon the prospective accused themselves to explain the manner of occurrence in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The said burden could be discharged by the prospective accused only if they were summoned by Court below to face trial. Court below has erroneously shifted the said burden upon the revisionist which is illegal. As such the order impugned is liable to be set aside by this court.
16. Per contra, the learned AGA and the learned counsel representing opposite parties-2 to 5 have vehemently opposed this criminal revision. They submit that order impugned is present criminal revision is perfectly just and legal. With reference to the order impugned, it is urged by the learned A.G.A. that Court below has recorded a categorical finding in the impugned order that the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred after expiry of a period of 12 years from the date of marriage of deceased. Court below has further observed that as per opinion of autopsy surgeon no external antemortem injuries were found on the body of deceased. On account of above the Visra of the deceased was preserved. As per the Visra report, a foreign chemical compound namely organo chloro insecticide was found in the body parts of the deceased sent for chemical examination. As such the death of the deceased is a suicidal death.
17. As per deposition of PW1, it cannot be gathered that prospective accused have either abetted, instigated or conspired in the commission of crime in question. On the above premise, it is thus urged that since no cast-iron case was made out for summoning the prospective accused, as per the deposition of P.W.1 court below has rightly rejected the application dated 16.3.2023 filed by revisionist under section 319 CrP.C. for summoning the prospective accused i.e opposite parties- 2 to 5 herein to face trial in aforesaid sessions trial. As such present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed by this court.
18. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Tiwari, the learned counsel for first informant-opposite party 2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the primary issue, which arises for determination in present revision is: What are the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C.? As a corollary to above, Court will also have to consider;-Whether the order impugned is within the established parameters or not?
19. Parameters regarding exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C. have been considered time and again by the Supreme Court. The chronology of same is as under:
(i) Dharam Pal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 306 (Five Judges Bench)
(ii) Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Five Judges Bench)
Paragraphs 4,5,6,6.5, 7, 11, 55, 56, 57, 85, 92, 105, 106, 116, 117.1 to 117.6.
(iii) Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 568
Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 15, 20, 21 and 22.
(iv) Jogendra yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2015) 9 SCc 244
Paragraph 13.
(v) Brijendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) SCC 706
Paragraphs 13, 14 and 15.
(vi) S Mohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 226
Paragraphs 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37.
(vii) Deepu @ Deepak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) 2 SCC 393
Paragraph 7.
(viii) Dev Wati and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2019) 4 SCC 329
Paragraph 8 and 9.
(ix) Periyasamai and Others Vs. S.Nallasamy, (2019) 4 SCC 342
Paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16.
(x) Sunil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2019) 4 SCC 556
Paragraphs 13 and 14.
(xi) Rajesh and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368
Paragraphs 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 7 and 8.
(xii) Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2019) 6 SCC 638
Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27
(xiii) Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 7 SCC 806
Paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17
(xiv) Mani Pushpak Joshi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, (2019) 9 SCC 805
Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.
(xv) Sugreev Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2019) SCC Online Sc 390
Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23.
(xvi) Labhuji Amratji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 12 SCC 644
Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.
(xvii) Sartaj Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2021) 5 SCC 337
Paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17
(xviii) Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 632
Paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38.
(xix) Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vs. The State of U.P. and another, 2021 SCC Online (SC) 741
Supreme Court remanded the matter before Sessions Judge for decision afresh.
(xx). Sagar Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine 289
(xxi). Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289 (Five Judges Bench),
Paragraphs 7, 37, 38 and 41.
(xxii). Jhuru and Others Vs. Qarim and Another, (2023) 5 SCC 406,
(xxiii). Jitendra Nath Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2023 (7) SCC 344,
(xxiv). Vikas Rathi Vs. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 211,
(xxv) Yashonandan Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2023) 9 SCC 108,
Paragraphs 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43.
(xxvi) Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 888,
(xxvii). N. Manogar and Another Vs. Inspector of Police and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 174
20. With the aid of above, the Court now proceeds to examine the veracity of impugned order dated 6.5.2023 passed by Additional District and Session Judge in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2021 (State Vs. Vikas), under Section 498-A, 306 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Deoband, District- Saharanpur, whereby Court below has rejected the application dated 16.3.2023 under section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist/first informant.
21. Before proceeding to do so, it must be noticed that following issues stand settled as per judgements of the Supreme Court mentioned herein above and, therefore, they are not required to be dealt with.
22. A non-charge sheeted accused can be summoned by the Court of Sessions after the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and for that purpose need not wait for the evidence of the witnesses to be recorded so that non-charge sheeted accused could be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., vide Five Judges Bench Judgment in Dharam Pal (Supra).
23. Ambit and scope of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. now stand crystallized by Supreme Court in paragraph-34 of the judgement in Manjeet Singh (supra).
24. A prospective accused can be summoned on the basis of the statement-in-chief of one prosecution witness without getting his examination-in-chief recorded vide Hardeep Singh (Supra).
25. The Court while summoning a prospective accused must come to the conclusion that a prima-facie case for summoning of a prospective accused is made out and in this regard, the Court must record it's satisfaction in consonance with the observation made in paragraph 106 of the judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra).
26. Though in view of the law laid down by the Five Judges Bench in Hardeep Singh (Supra) that a prospective accused can be summoned on the basis of statement-in-chief of one prosecution witness but in case, if the statement of the witness, who have deposed before Court below was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then in such a circumstance, the Court must draw a parallel in between the deposition of the witness as well as his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to find out whether something new has emerged in the deposition or not, vide Brijendra Singh (Supra).
27. The Court must consider the plethora of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as it is a relevant material, vide Brijendra Singh (Supra).
28. A prospective accused can be summoned only if, an inference of guilt of the accused can be drawn as per the material on record vide Brijendra Singh (Supra).
29. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary discretionary power, which should be exercised sparingly vide S Mohammad Ishpahani (Supra).
30. A prospective accused should not be summoned by a Court by exercising it's jurisdiction in a casual and cavalier fashion but diligently vide S Mohammad Ishpahani (Supra).
31. Court can summon a prospective accused by exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only when some strong and cogent evidence had emerged against a prospective accused and not merely on the basis of his complicity in the crime in question vide S Mohammad Ishpahani (Supra).
32. In the judgments referred to above, there is a common thread that the Court can scrutinize the evidence on record while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Further a prospective accused can be summoned only if a prima-facie case for summoning of a prospective accused is made out.
33. The evidence of an injured eye witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, the said statement is not to be discarded lightly. Vide paragraph 37 of judgement in Manjeet Singh (Supra).
34. An accused who has been summoned by the Court in exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C., cannot claim discharge vide S. Mohammaed Ispahani (Supra) and Vikas Rathi (Supra).
35. In Sukhpal Singh Khaira (Supra), a subsequent Bench of Supreme Court opined that the law laid down by Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh's (Supra) case requires re-consideration as certain questions remain unanswered in the Constitution Bench Judgement and further the parameters regarding exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C need to be re-laid down.
36. In Rajesh and Others (Supra), it has been held that failure on the part of first informant in not filing a protest petition against the charge-sheet, cannot be treated as an impediment or bar in exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C.
37. The reference made by a Two Judges Bench judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2019) 6 SCC 638, was answered by another Five Judges Bench judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289. The Court held that "The power under Section 319 CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.". Thereafter, the Court also laid down the guidelines to be followed while exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
38. A prospective accused is not required to be heard before an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is passed against him vide Yashodhan Singh and Others (Supra).
39. In Sandeep Kumar (Supra), the Court after noticing paragraphs 95 to 106 of the Five Judges Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra), considered the ingredients of Section 149 and with reference to above, upheld the order of trial Court, on the finding that in case, a person is a member of an unlawful assembly, the ingredients of Section 149 IPC are satisfied and therefore, no material qua the innocence of such an accused is required to be looked into at the stage of deciding an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
40. Having noted the settled position, the Court is now required to consider whether on the basis of deposition of PW-1, Pramod Tyagi (first informant), the prospective accused could have been summoned by court below. As an ancillary issue, Court will also have to consider as to whether:- court below has exercised it's jurisdiction "diligently" or as termed by Apex Court in a "casual and cavalier fashion."
41. The first issue which requires consideration by this court is whether the court below could have proceeded to decide the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by prosecution/first informant/ revisionist only after the entire prosecution evidence was recorded or Court below could have been proceeded to decide the application simply on the basis of the deposition of PW1. The said issue need not detail this Court for long, inasmuch as the same stands settled by the five Judges Bench judgement of Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92. The bench in aforesaid judgement has held in clear and categorical terms that an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. can be decided by court with reference to the statement-in-Chief only of one prosecution witnesses. The Court dealing with the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. need not wait for the entire prosecution evidence to be recorded. Apart from above since examination-in-chief of PW1 had also been recorded, therefore, the deposition of PW1 shall otherwise fall in the realm of legal evidence. As such no illegality has been committed by court below in deciding the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by prosecution/first informant/revisionist in light of the deposition of PW1 Pramod i.e first informant. Thus, the order impugned cannot be faulted on the above ground.
42. The five judges bench in the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) has further held that court while deciding an application under section 319 CRPC is also required to record its satisfaction that a prima facie case for summoning a prospective accused is made out before summoning a prospective accused. What will be the degree of satisfaction that is required to be observed by Court before summoning a prospective accused has been summarized in paragraph 106 of the judgement in Hardeep Singh(Supra). For ready reference, the same is extracted here in under:
"106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence" is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused". The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted". There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."
43. When the order impeded is analyzed in the light of above, this court finds that as per deposition of PW1, Pramod first informant/first informant/ revisionist, the court below could not have recorded the same degree of satisfaction as is required to be observed, at the time of summoning of prospective accused. As per the deposition of P.W.1 Pramod Tyagi no cast-iron case for summoning the prospective accused to face trial is made out. Therefore, no legality can be said to have been committed by court below in passing the order impugned.
44. Even though, the law with regard to the summoning of a prospective accused was crystallized by the Five Judges Bench in Hardeep Singh (Supra) and the Bench has formulated the same in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 6.5, 7, 11, 55, 56, 57, 85, 92, 105, 106, 116, 117.1 to 117.6 of the report yet the parameters with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were subsequently, made more stringent but in favour of accused by 2 subsequent Two Judges Bench Judgments of the Supreme Court in Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Rajsthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 and S Mohammad Ishpahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak (2017) 16 SCC 22. On a conjoint reading of the aforementioned judgments, the Court upon consideration of the law laid down in Hardeep Singh (Supra) has gone steps further and limited the scope with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by formulating (a) a prospective accused can be summoned on the statement-in-chief of one prosecution witness (b) however, in a case, where an accused is named in the F.I.R. but exculpated by the Investigating Officer in the police report, then Court must consider the plethora of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as the said material is a relevant material (c) before summoning a prospective accused on the basis of deposition of prosecution witness, the Court must draw a parallel in between the statements of such witness recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and their depositions before Court below to find out whether something new has emerged in the depositions of the prosecution witness than what was stated by them in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., (d) the prospective accused cannot be summoned merely on the basis of his complicity in the crime in question but only if, an inference of guilt of prospective accused can be gathered from the evidence up to that stage, (e) the power under Section 319 Cr. P. C. is an extraordinary discretionary power and should be exercised sparingly and not in a routine manner, (f) the Courts should exercise their jurisdiction diligently and not in a "casual and cavalier" fashion, (g) it is only when strong and cogent evidence has emerged against a prospective accused, which is much more than mere complicity of a prospective accused in the crime in question can he be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
45. Admittedly the charge sheeted accused is facing trial under section 498A, 304 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. In the F.I.R. giving rise to present criminal proceedings, the first informant, Pramod has alleged that Physical and mental cruelty was committed upon deceased on account ofdeficient dowry and insufficient goods given at the time of marriage. There is no allegation in the F.I.R. that additional demand of dowry was raised. It is thus apparent that as per the basic prosecution case no demand of dowry was made by the prospective accused. However, the first informant Pramod in his deposition before Court below has stated that demand of Rs. 10 lacs was raised. He, has further stated that he paid a sum of Rs. 2 lacs which was used in the purchase of a house. However, no documentary evidence regarding payment of aforesaid amount or the details of the house so purchased were furnished. He has then stated that he gave a sum of Rs. 3 lacs for booking a flat in urban home. But again neither the mode of payment nor the details of the flat booked were given. He has further stated that the sale deed of the flat was got executed in favour of the Vikas on 19.8.2019. Apart from above allegations regarding commission of physical and mental cruelty upon the deceased by the in-laws have also been made.
46. However, when the statement of the P.W.1 Pramod is examined as a whole it is apparent that it is devoid of material particulars. At this stage it would be apt to refer to paragraph 18 of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599:
"18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that ?all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy?. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution."
47. When the statement of the P.W.1 Pramod/first informant is examined in the light of above, the same does not satisfy the test laid down by the Supreme Court for inferring the commission of physical/mental cruelty on account of insufficient dowry/goods given at the time o f marriage.
48. It is thus apparent that except for vague and bald allegations, nothing more has emerged in the deposition of P.W.1.
49. Moreover the charge sheeted accused has been charged under section 306 IPC. As offence under section 306 IPC has to be examined with reference to Section 107 IPC. The ambit and scope of section 306 IPC has been considered by this Court as well as Apex Court in (i). Sarvesh Vs. State of U.P. 2018 ADJ Online 0163, (ii).Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Pubjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200, (iii). Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737, (iv). Mirza Iqbal alias Golu and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1251, (v) Mariano Anto Bruno and Another Vs. Inspector of Police 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, & (vi) Kashibai and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 575. When the statement of P.W.1, is examined in the light of above, it is evident that the principles laid down by Court for bringing home a charge under section 306 IPC in aforementioned judgements are not satisfied. As such, no strong and cogent evidence has emerged against prospective accused qua their summoning in the aforementioned sessions trial.
50. In view of the discussion made above, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
51. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
52. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the cost is made easy.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024
Arshad
