HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 88 / 2017
Bhanu Pratap S/o Shri Girdhari Ram Prajapat, Aged About 28
Years, Village Khejarla, Thana Bilara, Presently R/o Rajeev Gandhi
Colony, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
1. The State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
2. Shyam Lal S/o Shri Basti Ram, Ashok Nagar, Chandana Bhakar,
For Petitioner(s) : Dr.Nikhil Dungawat.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.RK Bohra, PP and Mr.BS Charan.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
Learned counsel Shri Dungawat urges that the trial Court has
proceeded on totally wrong premises while directing framing of
charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 306
and 498A IPC by order dated 2.12.2016. He points out that the
deceased Savita was married to the petitioner on 29.7.2007. She
committed suicide on 25.3.2016 and thus, apparently, the
unfortunate incident occurred after more than 8 years of the
marriage. He points out that the trial Court has proceeded on a
misplaced assumption that Savita died of unnatural causes at the
matrimonial home within 7 years of her marriage and thus, the
(2 of 2)
petitioner should be charged for the offences alleged. He thus
urges that the impugned order is factually incorrect and the same
should be set aside.
Per contra, learned P.P. and learned counsel for the
complainant vehemently oppose the submissions advanced by the
petitioner’s counsel and urge that there is no reason to interfere in
the impugned order framing charge.
I have appreciated the arguments advanced at the Bar and
have perused the impugned order and the material available on
record. The trial Court evidently erred while observing that the
death of Savita occurred within 7 years of her marriage with the
petitioner. As per the admitted case of the prosecution, Savita was
married to the petitioner on 19.7.2007 and she expired on
25.3.2016. Thus apparently, her death occurred after more than
8½ years of the marriage. Consequently, the advantage of
presumption is not available to the prosecution. Thus, evidently
the impugned order is based on misreading of facts and hence
cannot be sustained.
Resultantly, the instant revision petition deserves to be and
is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 2.12.2016 is
quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court
to rehear the parties on the question of charges and to pass a
fresh reasoned order as per law.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.