Rameshwar Dayal Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4646 MP

   1   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
             Criminal Revision No.1616/2021
  Rameshwar Dayal Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and
                        another

Gwalior, Dated:25/08/2021

       Shri R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Purohit,

Advocate for applicants, through video conferencing.

       Shri N.K. Gupta, Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1/State.

Shri Mayank Bajpai, Advocate for respondent no.2, through

video conferencing.

This Criminal Revision under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has

been filed against the order dated 12/7/2021 passed by Sixth

Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.277/2018,

by which the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by

respondent no.2 has been allowed and the applicants have been

arrayed as an additional accused.

It is not out of place to mention here that earlier by order dated

30/9/2019 the Trial Court had passed a similar order which was

challenged by the applicants before this Court by filing a Criminal

Revision No.4988/2019 and by order dated 16/6/2021 the order dated

30/9/2019 passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the Trial Court

was directed to decide the application afresh in the light of the

direction given by the Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh

Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92.

After remand, the Trial Court has once again allowed the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.1616/2021 Rameshwar Dayal Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by the impugned order.

The prosecution story in nut shell are that the marriage of Smt

Pooja was solemnized with Om Sharma on 7.12.2015 in accordance

with Hindu Rights and Customs and an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-in

cash, ornaments worth Rs. 5,00,000/- Lacs and domestic items were

given in the marriage and after marriage the in-laws of Pooja started

harassing her for demand of dowry and accordingly on 14.09.2017

Smt Poooja committed suicide by hanging. Merg inquiry was

initiated under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. During Merg inquiry, it was

alleged by the parents of the deceased that they have given Rs. 10

Lacs cash and ornaments. At the time of Vidai ceremony, the

applicants and other in-laws of Pooja started demanding further

amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is alleged that thereafter Mahesh came

and convinced the in-laws of the bride and assured that later on their

demand shall be looked into. About 4 to 5 days of the marriage of

Pooja, the nephew of respondent no. 2 went to her matrimonial

house. It is alleged that nephews of respondent no. 2 were beaten by

the applicants and other in-laws and scoled as to why the amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- has not been brought and they were alleging that infact

respondent no. 2 promised that he would perform marriage of Rs.

25,00,000/- but only Rs. 10,00,000/- and ornaments worth Rs.

5,00,000/- have been given. It is submitted that thereafter respondent 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.1616/2021 Rameshwar Dayal Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

no. 2 went to matrimonial home of his daughter but they were

continuously beating the girl. Whenever the girl used to come to her

parental home, she was constantly telling that her in-laws were ill

treating her especially applicant no. 1. After delivery, the girl was not

sent to her parental home and demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- continued.

It is alleged that on 31.08.2017 respondent no. 2 lost his father. The

applicants and other in-laws of the girl came to attend 13th day

ceremony of the father of respondent no. 2. It is alleged that that did

not accept the food and respondent no. 2 was beaten and after leaving

the girl they all went back. On the next day, the girl was taken back

by Shri Om Sharma. On 14.09.2017 the respondent no. 2 was

informed that health condition of the deceased is deteriorating and

therefore they should reach Morar Hospital. Respondent no. 2 went

to the hospital and saw that the deceased was lying dead.

It is submitted that police after investigation did not file

charge-sheet against applicants. However, after recording statement

of respondent no. 2 and other witnesses, the trial Court exercised its

jurisdiction under Section 319 of Cr.P.C and has summoned the

applicants as additional accused.

Challenging the order passed by the Court below, It is

submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that in the light of the 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.1616/2021 Rameshwar Dayal Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh

Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 2 SCC 92 has held that

Section 319 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised only when the evidence

which has come on record is slightly more than what is required for

framing charges and less than what is required for recording

conviction.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the

applicants are residing separately and have nothing to do with the

family affairs of the applicants. The Supreme Court in number of

cases has held that the near and dear relatives should not be harassed

only on the ground of their relationship with the husband of the

deceased. There was no specific allegations against the applicants

warranting their trial and thus, the Court below has not reconsidered

the matter in accordance with law.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State as well

as the complainant that even in the statements recorded during the

inquest proceedings as well as in their statements under Section 161

of Cr.P.C. specific role was assigned to the applicants. It is incorrect

to say that the applicants and the other in-laws of the deceased are

residing separately at a distant place. In fact both are the residents of

the same locality and the applicants were actively interfering in the 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.1616/2021 Rameshwar Dayal Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

married life of the deceased.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The Supreme Court in the case of Monju Roy Vs. State of

W.B., reported in (2015) 13 SCC 693 has held as under :

8. While we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the courts below that the deceased was subjected to harassment on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demand, we do find merit in the submission that possibility of naming all the family members by way of exaggeration is not ruled out. In Kans Raj, this Court observed: (SCC p. 215, para 5) "5. ... A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their overenthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."

The court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in the absence of any specific role and material to support such role.

9. In Raja Lal Singh v. State of Jharkhand it was observed:

(SCC p. 419, para 14) "14. No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW 5 Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the deceased Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of the deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri told them that dowry was demanded by not only Raja Lal 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.1616/2021 Rameshwar Dayal Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi, but we are of the opinion that it is possible that the names of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi have been introduced only to spread the net wide as often happens in cases like under Sections 498-A and 394 IPC, as has been observed in several decisions of this Court e.g. in Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, etc. Hence, we allow the appeal of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial court insofar as it relates to them and we direct that they be released forthwith unless required in connection with some other case."

10. Moreover, ingredient of the offence under Section 304- B IPC is not mere demand of dowry but "cruelty or harassment" for or in connection with demand of dowry. In Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan it was observed: (SCC pp. 71-72, para 29) "29. ... What is punishable under Section 498-A or Section 304-B IPC is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband on the woman. It will be also clear from Section 113-B of the Evidence Act that only when it is shown that soon before her death a woman has been subjected by any person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death within the meaning of Section 304-B IPC. The act of subjecting a woman to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry by the accused, therefore, must be established by the prosecution for the court to presume that the accused has caused the dowry death."

11. The court has to adopt a pragmatic view and when a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand of dowry or harassment which follows cannot be weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus allegation against all family members particularly against the brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on the same footing as husband and parents. In such case, apart from general allegation of demand of dowry, the court has to be satisfied that harassment was also caused by all the named members."

7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.1616/2021 Rameshwar Dayal Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

The State counsel has produced the case diary. From the

statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, it is clear

that they have levelled specific allegations against the applicants and

they are not vague or omnibus in nature. The police had not filed the

charge-sheet against the applicants only on the ground that they are

residing separately. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that the in-

laws of the deceased are the residents of Bilhati, whereas the

applicants are the residents of Tyagi Nagar, Morar, which is situated

at a distance of 15-16 from Bilhati, Police Station Bijoli. Even in the

Court evidence the witnesses have specifically alleged against the

applicants. There are specific allegations that the applicants had

demanded Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of Vidai of the deceased and even

subsequent thereto also, the applicants were harassing the deceased

physically as well as mentally for demand of Rs.5,00,000/-. If the

statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation as well as

their Court evidence are considered, then it is clear that there are

specific allegations against the applicants and it cannot be said to be

vague and omnibus. In the light of the specific allegations made

against the applicants, it cannot be said to be an attempt to over or

falsely implicate them merely because the applicants are distantly

related to the in-laws of the deceased.

At this stage, it is also submitted by the counsel for the 8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.1616/2021 Rameshwar Dayal Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

respondent no.2 that the charge under Section 302 of IPC has also

been framed and under these circumstances, whether the applicants

are distantly related or not, will not assume any importance.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out

warranting interference.

Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.09.01 14:38:37 +05'30'