Sanjeev Sachdeva JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
CRL. REV. P. 83/2017 & Crl. M.A. 1317/2017 (stay), Crl. M.A. 3866/2017 (for clarification of order dated 23.01.2017)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 28.10.2016, whereby, the Trial Court has discharged respondent No. 2 Smt. Savitri of all charges.
2. Deceased - Ms. Manisha was married on 29.04.2015 to one Akash son of Respondent No. 2. In the intervening night of 12.02.2016 and 13.02.2016, she committed suicide by hanging herself from a ceiling fan. Respondent No. 2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased.
3. Incident was reported to the Police Station Bhajan Pura on 13.02.2016 and inquest proceedings were conducted by the Executive Magistrate and as per the post mortem, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.
4. FIR was registered under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC, Police Station Bhajanpura. Husband of the deceased-Akash, Brother-in-law of the deceased-Vikash and mother-in-law-respondent No. 2 Smt. Savitri Devi were arrayed as accused.
5. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against Akash, Vikash, Neelam-wife of Vikash and Smt. Savitri Devi.
6. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has discharged Akash, Vikash, Neelam and Respondent No. 2-Smt. Savitri Devi for the offences under Section 498A and 304B. However, charge has been framed against Akash under Section 306 IPC.
7. Subject petition has been filed by the father of the deceased impugning the order-on-charge in so far as Respondent No. 2-Smt. Savitri Devi is concerned and contending that there was sufficient material against respondent No. 2-Savitri Devi for framing of charges.
8. It is contended that the Trial Court has erred in not noticing the statements of Ms. Anita-cousin sister of the deceased, Mrs. Renu-sister-in-law of the deceased, who are alleged to have made statements which show commission of offence under Sections 498A/304 IPC.
9. It is contended that in their statements both Anita and Renu have stated that Smt. Savitri Devi-her mother-in-law used to ask her to bring a four wheeled vehicle and she was being harassed for not bringing a four wheeled vehicle.
10. Trial Court in the impugned judgment has noticed the provisions of Section 304B IPC and held that to bring home the guilt under Section 304B IPC, prosecution must prove that:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) Such a death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) Soon before death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with demand of dowry; and
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
11. Trial Court has also noticed that the provisions of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act as also the judgments of the Supreme Court in Baljinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab: MANU/SC/1047/2014 : 2015 [1] JCC 473 ........