HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
CRMC No. 281/2017, IA Nos. 01/2017, 03/2017 and 02/2017
c/w
CRMC No. 325/2017 and IA No. 01/2017
CRMC No. 607/2017 and IA No. 01/2017
Date of order:- 14.09.2018
Nisha Devi Vs. State of JK.
Narinder Singh Vs. State of JK.
Rohit Singh and ors. Vs. State of JK.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate for
complainant/petitioner.
Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. J.A. Hamal, Advocate
Mr. J. Singh Jasrotia, Advocate for
petitioners/accused.
For the Respondents(s) : Mr. F.A. Natnoo, AAG.
i/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No
Press/Media
ii/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No
Digest/Journal
1. In the instant three petitions filed under Section 561-A Cr.
P.C, the petitioners seek quashing of common impugned
order dated 08th April, 2017, passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Kathua, wherein the Additional Sessions
Judge, Kathua has refused to frame charge under Section
302 RPC against the accused persons in case titled, “State
Vs. Rohit Singh and ors.” and has framed charges under
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 1 of 23
section 304-B/498-A RPC in FIR NO. 27/2016 of P/S
Hiranagar, Kathua. Two petitions have been filed by
accused persons for quashing of charges and one petition
has been filed by complainant for altering the charges from
304-B RPC to 302 RPC.
CRMC No.325/2017
2. The grievance projected by the petitioner/Narinder Singh
accused, the brother of accused Rohit Singh (husband of
deceased), in the instant petition is that the marriage of the
elder brother of the petitioner, namely, Rohit Singh was
solemnized with one-Radha Sharma on 07th March, 2014 at
Hiranagar according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The
marriage was love marriage. At the time of the marriage,
the elder brother of the petitioner, namely, Rohit Singh was
serving in Indian Army. The said Radha Sharma left the
matrimonial house on 15th February, 2015 and started
living in her parental home at Hiranagar. The brother of the
petitioner made various efforts for restitution of conjugal
rights, but said Radha Sharma refused to cohabit with
Rohit Singh. The peaceful atmosphere of the house was
damaged because of their matrimonial disputes.
Consequent thereupon, the father of the petitioner got
annoyed and in order to maintain the peaceful atmosphere
of the house, he executed a Deed of Disinheritance
(Annexure-C) dated 11th June, 2015 at Kathua, whereby he
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 2 of 23
disinherited his son, i.e., Rohit Singh and the said deceased
from his all movable and immovable property. Since then
the petitioner along with his parents have been residing
separately from the deceased Radha Sharma and Rohit
Singh at their village Londi, Tehsil Hiranagar, District
Kathua.
3. It is stated in the instant petition that as per the prosecution
case, on 18th March, 2016 at about 11:30 P.M, the
grandfather of the deceased-Radha Sharma lodged a report
with police that the victim has committed suicide by
hanging herself in her in-law‟s house situated at Ward No.
13, Hiranagar, Kathua. It has also come in the statement of
the prosecution witnesses that the dead body of Radha
Sharma was recovered from the house of the accused
persons, but the accused persons were residing in another
house and not in the house, where the dead body was
recovered. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that
the deceased was living separately from the accused
persons since long; therefore, there is no proximity
between the demand of dowry and cause of death of the
deceased. The evidence assembled against the petitioner
did not disclose the commission of any offence. There is
no material evidence available in the record to show that
the petitioner/accused No.3 was being benefitted from the
demand of dowry, if any, made by the accused No.1. The
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 3 of 23
petitioner/accused No.3 was only 17 years old at the time
of the said marriage and he was nothing to do with the
demand of dowry. The deceased left the matrimonial house
in February, 2015. Besides this, the father of the petitioner
executed the aforesaid deed of disinheritance, by which he
has disinherited the deceased and her husband.
4. It is further submitted in the instant petition that the
petitioner, by dint of his hard work, got selected in Indian
Army and presently undergoing training at JAKLI Training
Centre, Srinagar. In order to harass the petitioner, the
father of the deceased filed one complaint before the
Commanding Officer (C.O), JAKLI, Training Centre,
Srinagar, so that the petitioner be restrained from
undergoing training. During the time of investigation, the
prosecution has collected various letters, written by the
deceased-Radha Sharma in her own writing communicated
to the Commanding Officer of her husband, in which she
had specifically mentioned the names of the persons, who
were harassing her and demanding dowry. In para-29 in
one of the letters (Annexure-G), she had mentioned the
names of the persons, who used to harass her, but the name
of the petitioner is nowhere mentioned in that letter. Thus,
it is a clear case that the petitioner was falsely implicated in
the case only because he is the brother of the deceased‟s
husband and in order to take vengeance, the parents of the
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 4 of 23
deceased involved him also. Material does not show any
involvement of the petitioner in the offence, for which he
has been charged with. Thus, the charges framed against
the petitioner, by the trial Court are liable to be quashed. In
view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has
approached this Court by way of instant petition.
CRMC No. 607/2017
5. This petition has been filed by three accused namely Rohit
Singh (husband of deceased), Neena Kumari (mother-in-
law) and one Kudeep Singh for quashing of charges framed
against them under section 304-B/498-A RPC. The factual
matrix of the instant case is that the marriage of the
petitioner No.1, namely, Rohit Singh was solemnized with
one-Radha Sharma on 07th March, 2014 at Hiranagar
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of
the marriage, Rohit Singh was serving in Indian Army. The
said Radha Sharma left the matrimonial house on 15 th
February, 2015 because of the matrimonial disputes
between them and started living in her parental home at
Hiranagar. The petitioner No. 1 made various efforts for
restitution of conjugal rights, but said Radha Sharma
refused to cohabit with him. Since, 15th Feb., 2015, the
deceased-Radha Sharma had been residing with her parents
in her parental house and thereafter, the deceased-Radha
Sharma never resided with the petitioners.
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 5 of 23
6. It is stated in the instant petition that as per the prosecution
case, on 18.03.2016 at about 11:30 P.M, the grandfather of
the deceased-Radha Sharma lodged a report with police
that the victim has committed suicide by hanging herself in
her in-law‟s house situated at Ward No. 13, Hiranagar,
Kathua. It has also come in the statement of the
prosecution witnesses that the dead body of Radha Sharma
was recovered from the house of the accused persons, but
the accused persons were residing in another house and not
in the house, where the dead body was recovered. It is the
admitted case of the prosecution that the deceased was
living separately from the accused persons since long,
therefore, there is no proximity between the demand of
dowry and cause of death of the deceased. The evidence
assembled against the petitioners did not disclose the
commission of any offence. There is no material evidence
available in the record to show that the petitioner/accused
No.4 was being benefitted from the demand of dowry, if
any, made by the accused No.1. The deceased left the
matrimonial house on 15th February, 2015 and thereafter,
never lived together with the petitioners. Petitioner No.3,
namely, Kuldeep Singh, who is the real uncle (Chacha) of
petitioner No.1 had been residing separately at his village
with his own family including his wife and children much
before the above said marriage of the deceased-Radha
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 6 of 23
Sharma. There was no occasion when the petitioner No.3
lived with the deceased-Radha Sharma at her matrimonial
house and he has nothing to do with the demand of dowry.
The deceased left the matrimonial house in February, 2015.
Besides this, the father of the petitioner executed the
aforesaid deed of disinheritance, by which he has
disinherited the deceased and her husband. So, in such
situation, there is no proximity between the demand of
dowry and cause of death.
7. It is further stated in the instant petition that the petitioners
were falsely implicated in the case only because they are
the relatives of the deceased and in order to take
vengeance, the parents of the deceased involved the
petitioner also. Material does not show any involvement of
the petitioners in offence, for which they have been
charged with. Thus, charges framed by the trial Court
against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. In view of
the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioners have
approached this Court by way of instant petition.
CRMC No. 281/2017
8. The grievance projected by the petitioner/ complainant in
the instant petition is that the her daughter, i.e., deceased
(Radha Sharma) got married to one Rohit Singh S/o
Malkeet Singh, resident of Ward No. 13 Hiranagar. The
said Radha Sharma was found dead at the residence of her
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 7 of 23
in-laws and the proceedings under Section 175 Cr. P.C
were initiated by the Hiranagar Police. Consequent upon
the statement of eye witnesses, an FIR bearing No. 27/2016
was lodged by the Police Station, Hiranagar against the
accused persons, i.e. Rohit Singh and rest of his family
members. The Hiranagar Police initiated the investigation
and consequently filed charge-sheet under Sections 304-
B/306/498 RPC against the accused persons. The family
members of the deceased Radha Sharma were not satisfied
at all with the manner and mode of the investigation done
by the Investigating Officer of the case. Consequently,
numbers of RTI applications and representations, appended
as Annexure-A to the writ petition, were made to IGP,
Jammu Zone, SSP Kathua etc.
9. It is further stated in the instant petition that in spite of all
the efforts and testimony of the eye witnesses present, the
I.O. of the case did not incorporate Section 302 RPC
against the accused persons despite the fact that ample
material was available to incorporate Section 302 RPC
against the accused persons. The statement recorded by the
police, post-mortem report and other substantial evidence
available on the file are sufficient to satisfy the inclusion of
Section 302 RPC against the accused persons. The letters
written by the deceased Radha Sharma to the officers and
superiors of her husband are sufficient to reveal the
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 8 of 23
grotesque fact about how the deceased was subjugated to
rape and how her pictures in compromising position were
captured by the accused-Rohit Singh. The letters also
reveal the fact that she was subjected to physical relation
when she was just about 12-13 years old by the accused-
Rohit Singh. The letters also justify that she was
pressurized to undergo marriage ceremony and was
blackmailed threatened that otherwise her nude pictures
will be exposed on the internet and social media. The said
Rohit Singh has filed a Divorce Petition, which reveals that
the said Rohit Singh was bitterly humiliated and exposed
before his superior army officials by the letters sent by the
deceased-Radha Sharma.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has placed
reliance upon the judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
cases titled, “(i) “Rajbir alias Raju anr. Vs. State of
Haryana, reported in 2011 AIR (SC) 568” and (ii)
“Jasvinder Saini and others. Vs. State, reported in 2014
AIR (SC) 841”. He states that after filing of the charge-
sheet, the argument of the Public Prosecutor was to include
the offence 302 RPC in the charge-sheet and the order
dated 08th April, 2017 specifically revolves around the
aforesaid two judgments. The Trial Court has relied upon
Jasvinder Singh‟s judgment for not charge-sheeting the
accused persons under Section 302 RPC. But even in
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 9 of 23
Jasvinder Singh‟s judgment, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
states that even in dowry death, the charge under 302 RPC
can be framed, if there is evidence/material available on
record. The plethora of material available on the file does
justify inclusion of Section 302 RPC against all the
accused persons. The material available on record to
justify inclusion of Section 302 RPC against the accused.
The post-mortem report, which is appended as Annexure-B
to the writ petition shows that there were abrasion over
little and ring fingers on the dorsal aspect of right hand,
which as per medical jurisprudence is a definite sign of
struggle. The pattern of ligature mark: starting from right
mandibular region covering the whole anterior of neck
below chin and extending upto left nape of neck back side
along with the colour of ligature mark being dark violet
colour and hyoidbone and hyoid cartilage being intact, but
Haemorrhages and ecchymosis present are the glaring
aspects, which are present when a person is strangulated.
11. Heard counsel for parties and gone through the trial court
file.
12. From the perusal of file, the facts emerging are that on
18.3.2016 an oral complaint was lodged by one Thoru
Ram grandfather of the deceased Radha Sharma stating
that his granddaughter was married to accused Rohit
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 10 of 23
Singh since two years ago; she has died by hanging
with „Dupata‟ in her husband‟s house; her dead body
was lying in house; no persons from her in-laws was
present in the house; she has died in suspicion
circumstances. This report was entered in daily register
vide report no.27 dated 18.3.2016. Proceeding under
section 174 Cr.P.C. was commenced. The police at the
first instance started inquest proceedings in terms of
Section 174 Cr.P.C and during inquest proceedings the
dead body of the deceased Radha Sharma was seized,
post mortem was conducted and the statement of
witnesses came to be recorded and inquest proceedings
resulted into the registration of FIR. Statement of the
prosecution witnesses in terms of Section 164-A
Cr.P.C. also came to be recorded. The prosecution
witnesses have stated that the marriage of the petitioner
and accused No.1 was solemnized about two years
back from the date of her death which occurred under
mysterious circumstances. The body of the deceased
stand recovered from the house of accused persons.
The death had occurred under mysterious
circumstances within two years of marriage of accused
No.1 with deceased. It has also come in the statement
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 11 of 23
of prosecution witnesses that dead body of Radha
Sharma was recovered from the house of accused
persons but the accused persons were residing in
another house and not in the house from where dead
body was recovered. It has also come in the statement
of prosecution witnesses that the relation between the
parties remained cordial for a period of 6/7 months
after marriage but thereafter, the accused persons
started demanding dowry. The accused No.1 with the
aid and abetment of accused No.2 to 4 was demanding
dowry in the shape of plot and other articles from
deceased which resulted in mental torture to her and
disturbance in her married life and dragged into
matrimonial litigation for not fulfilling demand of
dowry. Unable to bear torture and harassment due to
demand of dowry and conduct of accused person she
ended her life as her dead body was found hanging
with a dupata in the house of accused persons.
13. After completion of investigation, challan was produced
and court after hearing the PP and counsel for accused
passed a detail order framing the charges under section
304-B / 498-A RPC against all the accused persons vide
impugned order on 08.04.2017.
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 12 of 23
14. Counsel for accused persons, who have been charge
sheeted, has reiterated all grounds taken in memo of
petitions; similarly counsel for complainant has reiterated
the grounds taken in the memo of petition.
15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspects
of matter and law on the point. The relevant laws, for
quashing of charge/s and framing of charge, delivered by
Apex Court reads as under:-
In AIR 2014 SC 1106 in case titled Umesh Kumar v
State of Andhra Pradesh, it held as under:-
“Code of criminal procedure -section 482 -instead of
considering prima facie case-High court appreciating and
weighing the materials on record -concluding that charge
sheet could not have been filed against accused and
further ,no charges could have been framed -virtually
acting as an appellant court -approach illegal and
erroneous.
A Constitution Bench of this Court reiterated a
similar view in CBI Ors. v. Keshub Mahindraetc., AIR
2011 SC 2037 observing that when the charges are
framed, the court makes an endorsement till that stage.
So charges are framed on the materials produced by the
prosecution for framing the charges ―at that stage‖. Such
indication is necessary otherwise the provisions
containedin Sections216, 323, 386, 397, 399, 401 etc. Cr.P
.C., would be rendered nugatory and denuded a
competent court of the powers under those provisions.
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 13 of 23
The court cannot be restrained from exercising its
powers either under Section 323 or Section 216 Cr.P.C.‖
In 2015 (3) CRIMES (SC) 89 in case titled The State rep.
by the Inspector of Police Vs. Mariya Anton Vijay, it is
held as under:-
“The question as to how, in what manner and to what
extent, the inherent powers of the High Court under
section 482 of the Code are exercised for quashing the
registration of FIR/final report/charge sheet/complaint etc.
are no more res integra and settled by several decisions of
this Court.
One leading case on this question is Bhajan Lal’s case
(supra) and the other is S.B.Johari’s case (supra) apart
from many others.
So far as the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) is concerned,
following proposition of law is laid down:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facieCRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 14 of 23
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the
allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an
order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is
a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliabilityCRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 15 of 23
or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or
inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on
the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
As far as S.B. Johari (Supra) case is concerned, following
proposition of law is laid down:
“4. In our view, it is apparent that the entire approach of
the High Court is illegal and erroneous. From the reasons
recorded by the High Court, it appears that instead of
considering the prima facie case, the High Court has
appreciated and weighed the materials on record for
coming to the conclusion that charge against the
respondents could not have been framed. It is settled law
that at the stage of framing the charge, the court has to
prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. The court is not required
to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that
the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting
the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case
is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be
framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which
the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the
accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by
cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any,
cannot show that the accused committed the particular
offence. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground
for proceeding with the trial. In Niranjan Singh Karam
Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjayya, (1990) 4 SCC
76, after considering the provisions of Sections
227 and 228 CrPC, the Court posed a question, whether at
the stage of framing the charge, the trial court should
marshal the materials on the record of the case as he
would do on the conclusion of the trial. The Court held
that at the stage of framing the charge inquiry must
necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging
from such materials constitute the [pic]offence with which
the accused could be charged. The court may peruse the
records for that limited purpose, but it is not required to
marshal it with a view to decide the reliability thereof. The
Court referred to earlier decisions in State of Bihar v.
Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39, Union of India v.
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 16 of 23
Prafulla Kumar Samal,(1979) 3 SCC 4 and Supdt.
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar
Bhunja,(1979) 4 SCC 274 and held thus: (SCC p. 85, para
7) “From the above discussion it seems well settled that at
the Sections 227- 228 stage the court is required to
evaluate the material and documents on record with a view
to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at
their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. The court may for this
limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected
even at the initial stage to accept all that the prosecution
states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense
or the broad probabilities of the case.” (emphasis supplied)
5…………………………………………………………..
13. In our view the aforesaid exercise of appreciating
the materials produced by the prosecution at the stage of
framing of the charge is wholly unjustified. The entire
approach of the High Court appears to be as if the Court
was deciding the case as to whether the accused are guilty
or not………………..”
16. Keeping the aforementioned principles of law in mind and
applying the same to the facts of the case in hand, I am of
considered opinion that Sessions Judge, while framing
charge under section 269 of Cr.P.C. is obliged to scan the
evidence collected during investigation for limited purpose
for satisfying himself as to whether there are sufficient
grounds to presume that accused has committed offence as
is alleged. For the purpose of framing of charge, therefore,
the Judge has to consider judicially whether on
consideration of the materials on record, it can be said that
the accused has been reasonably connected with the
offence alleged to have been committed and that on the
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 17 of 23
basis of said materials there is a reasonable probability of
accused being found guilty of the offence as alleged. If the
answer is in affirmative, the judge will be at liberty to
presume “that the accused has committed an offence”.
Charge is first notice to the accused of an accusation made
against him. It should be conveyed to him in sufficient
clearness and certainty as to what the prosecution intends
to prove and with which case the accused is to meet.
17. Section 4(c) of Code of Criminal Procedure defines a
“charge” includes any head of charge when the charge
contains more heads than one. As per Law a charge may be
a precise formulation of a specific accusation made against
a person of offence alleged to have been committed by
him. The main purpose of framing charge is to give
intimation to the accused of clear, unambiguous and
precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused
is called upon to meet in the course of trial.
18. At the time of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie
consider whether there is sufficient ground to proceed
against the accused and Court is not required to appreciate
whether the material produced is sufficient or not for
convicting the accused.
19. From bare perusal of file and order of trial court with
regard to framing of charge, I find that court below has
carefully scanned the evidence collected by investigating
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 18 of 23
agency during investigation. He has considered all the
arguments of counsel for parties.
20. Section 304-B RPC reads as under:-
―[304B. Dowry death.–
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns
or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it
is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, such death shall be called ―dowry death‖, and
such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused
her death. Explanation.–For the purpose of this sub-
section, ―dowry‖ shall have the same meaning as in
section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment
for life.]
21. This section defines and punishes dowry death. The first
subsection which defines the offence states that where a
woman‟s death is caused by either any burns or bodily
injury or occurs under such circumstances which are not
normal within a period of seven years from the date she
was married and the prosecution proves beyond reasonable
doubt that soon before she died either her husband or any
of his relatives had subjected her to cruelty or harassment
either for or in connection with any dowry demand, such a
death is a „dowry death‟, and her death shall be deemed to
have been caused by such husband or relative. The second
sub-section which prescribes punishment for this offence
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 19 of 23
says that whoever commits this offence shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term not less than seven years but
which may be extended up to imprisonment for life. The
section requires that a woman must have died within seven
years of her marriage and she must have died of bums or
bodily injury or otherwise than under normal
circumstances. It must also be established that soon before
her death her husband or any relative of her husband had
subjected her to cruelty or harassment for or in connection
with any demand for dowry.
22. The death in present case has taken place otherwise than
under normal circumstances within two years of
marriage at her in-laws house; there is also evidence that
all accused were demanding dowry in the shape of plot and
other articles from deceased which resulted in mental
torture leading to suicide; dead body was found hanging
with dupata; all the accused persons were seen by
witnesses coming and leaving the house where dead body
was found. The post-mortem report of deceased also
suggests that deceased died due to asphyxia due to
hanging, ligature mark around the neck has been found.
These are certain incriminating circumstances, which trial
court finds, immediately before death for framing of
charges against the accused u/s 304-B RPC. From going
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 20 of 23
through the evidence on record, there is perceptible nexus
between the death of the deceased and harassment and
cruelty on her by accused persons. There is sufficient
evidence to show that deceased was subjected to cruelty
soon before committing of suicide by hanging.
23. Counsel for petitioners/accused, who have sought quashing
of charges, during the course of argument, has brought
certain facts as narrated by prosecution witnesses, thereby
stating that there is no evidence against the petitioners; he
has also argued that incriminating facts spoken by
prosecution witnesses against, are real relatives of
deceased. I have considered these aspects of the matter; in
dowry death case, the parents, brother and sister of
deceased are best witnesses to narrate the facts of demand
of dowry; the statements of relative witnesses cannot be
discarded at initial stage of framing of charges on the
ground that they are related to deceased; further detail
appreciation of evidence cannot be done at the stage of
framing of charges. From bare perusal of order of court
below and evidence on record, it is evident that there is
enough material collected by investigation agency, which
lead trial court to frame the charges under section 304-
B/498-A RPC against accused.
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 21 of 23
24. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity of law and
facts in order of trial Court framing charges against
accused/petitioners under section 304-B/498-A RPC.
25. So far as argument of counsel for complainant is
concerned that, additional offence under section 302 RPC
would have been added along with 304-B RPC against
accused, that argument is not tenable at this stage. Because,
for framing of additional charge under section 302RPC,
there should be some sufficient material, which in the
present case, is missing. The argument of counsel for
petitioner/complainant that ligature mark starting from
right mandibular region covering the whole anterior of
neck below chin and extending upto left nape of neck back
side along with the colour of ligature mark being dark
violet colour and Haemorrhages and Ecchymosis were
present, so there was a clear case of murder by
strangulation. This argument does not hold good at this
stage, because post-mortem report is not a substantial piece
of evidence; it requires detail appreciation during trial. The
laws cited by counsel for petitioner/complainant has
already been taken note of by court below in its right
perspective. Further it is settled law that charges can be
modified/amended at any stage of the trial.
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 22 of 23
26. Resultantly, these three petitions are dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Gupta)
Judge
Jammu
14.09.2018
Narinder
CRMC No.281/2017 c/w connected matters Page 23 of 23
