Ashwani Kumar And Anr. vs State (Government Of National ...
1997 Latest Caselaw 704 Del

JUDGMENT

Jaspal Singh, J.

(1) The petition challenges the framing of charges under Sections 406,498A and 304B all read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are Ashwani Kumar and his mother Sushila Devi.

(2) Ashwani Kumar's younger brother Arvind was married to Rita Rani on July 9, 1995. On September 1, 1995 she died of poisoning and was cremated on September 3, 1995. The very next day her father Daulat Ram lodged a First Information Report leading to the arrest and subsequent trial of the petitioners and ethers. On September 6, 1996 the charges as noticed above were framed not only against the petitioners but also against Hompal Singh father of Ashwani Kumar and Arvind, the husband of the deceased.

(3) As far as the charge under Section 406 read with Section 34 is concerned it was conceded by the learned State Counsel for the State and rightly so, that there is no material on the record to justify the framing of the said charge as against the petitioners.

(4) As far as the charges framed under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 are concerned, the statements of Daulat Ram, Ramankant and Sheela Devi were recorded. As already noticed above, Daulat Ram is the father of the deceased. Sheela Devi is her mother while Ramankant is her brother. A bare perusal of their statements would go to show that even at the time of the marriage ceremony a demand for more dowry had been raised and that thereafter too she used to be taunted and teased and ill-treated for not bringing sufficient dowry. The deceased had complained that on account of dissatisfaction over dowry she used to be beaten also. The witnesses have named the petitioners and the husband of the deceased as the persons who treated the deceased with cruelty on account of their dissatisfaction over the dowry brought by her and on account of non-fulfilment of the demand for more dowry.

(5) While Daulat Ram.his wife and son have clearly implicated the petitioners it is also to be remembered that the deceased died an unnatural death. That it was a case of poisoning finds support from the post-mortem report and so also from the report of the C.F.S.L. And while I am on this aspect of the matter, it also needs to be remembered that the unnatural death was within a few months of the marriage giving rise to presumption adverse to. the petitioners.

(6) It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that though at the time of her admission in the hospital the deceased was declared fit to make statement, yet her statement was not recorded and that, in any case, the death was caused due to cardiac arrest and as such it could not be said to be an unnatural death. This certainly is no stage to critically analyse the material on the record. Though at one place the doctor did write on the Mlc that the patient was fit to make statement, at another place she is stated to be unfit to make any statement. Unfortunately it is not known as to at what particular time those two observations were made. It would perhaps be revealed only during trial. However, I do not think that non-recording of the statement of the deceased would in any way wash away the effect of the statements of the parents and the brother of the deceased as far as the limited question of framing of the charge is concerned.

(7) As far the contention that the death was due to cardiac arrest, I have already referred to the post-mortem report and to the report of the C.F.S.L. Both clearly lead to the conclusion that poison was the cause and while considering the question as to whether charge should be framed or not, I feel it is not possible to ignore the impact of these reports.

(8) It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the learned Trial Judge had framed charges mechanically and without applying his mind. Undoubtedly, at the stage of framing charges, the Court has to apply its judicial mind to the consideration whether or not there i s any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. Since, the order of framing a charge affects a person's liberty and that too substantially, it is the duty of the Court to consider judicially whether the material on the record warrants such an order. However, in the case in hand, for the reasons recorded above, I feel that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly framed charges under Section 498A read with Section 34 and under Section 304B read with Section 34 against the petitioners. As already noticed above the framing of the charge under Section 406 read with Section 34 was not justified and the same stands quashed. The petition thus stands accepted partly to the extent noticed above. However, before concluding I may add that nothing said in this order shall be read as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.