HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
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.).

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

2. Shyam Lal S/o Shri Basti Ram, Ashok Nagar, Chandana Bhakar,
Jodhpur, (Raj).

—-Respondents
__
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
29/08/2017

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)
[CRLR-88/2017]

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.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

S.Phophaliya/-