HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 51 / 2017
Smt. Meena W/o Shri Prem Prakash Balach, Gadara Road, Tehsil
Gadara Road, Distt. Barmer.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Bhima Ram S/o Shri Basta Ram Meghwal, Binjasar, Police
Station, Bijrad, Distt. Barmer Presently At Telecom Colony,
Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Nishant Bora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, PP.
Mr. Siddharth Karwasara.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
Date of Judgment: 08/08/2017
By way of this revision petition preferred under Section 397
Cr.P.C., the petitioner herein seeks to assail the order dated
17.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge No.1, Barmer in Sessions Case No.126/2015 whereby, the
learned trial court directed framing of charge against the
petitioner for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
Facts in brief are that Shri Pradeep, son of the present
petitioner was married to the deceased Smt. Nirmala @ Neha on
23.01.2007 and was working as a District Excise Officer in the
Excise Department. Two sons were born from the wedlock. It is
alleged that after some time of their marriage, Pradeep started
(2 of 7)
[CRLR-51/2017]
demanding dowry from the deceased Smt. Nirmala and her
parents. It was further alleged that Pradeep was having a love
affair with another girl for the last about 2 years and owing
thereto, he was harassing and humiliating the deceased and was
threatening that if she did not procure a house and
Rs.10,00,000/- from her father, she would be killed and he would
remarry. On 19.04.2015, Smt.Nirmala @ Neha called her mother
and expressed an apprehension that the petitioner and his brother
Hitesh could kill her. On 19.04.2015 in the night, Pradeep and
Hitesh accompanied with Neha and her son Rajat proceeded to
Barmer by car. On the way, Pradeep and Hitesh assaulted Nirmala
@ Neha and threw her out of the car as a result whereof, she
suffered serious injuries and succumbed thereto. A written report
to this effect was submitted by Bhimaram, father of the deceased
with the District Superintendent of Police, Barmer on 22.04.2015
upon which, an FIR No.21/2015 was registered for the offences
under Sections 302 and 498A read with 201 IPC.
During the course of investigation, the police got conducted
the postmortem of body of the deceased Nirmala @ Neha as per
which, she was found to be having numerous injuries on her
person. The investigation found accused Pradeep Balach
responsible for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 498A
IPC, Hitesh for the offences under Sections 302, 201 read with
Section 120B IPC and the present petitioner being the mother-in-
law of the deceased for the offence under Section 498A IPC and a
charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the terms indicated
above. Before the trial court, it was contested on behalf of the
(3 of 7)
[CRLR-51/2017]
petitioner Smt. Meena urging that there was no material on record
of the case to show that she had ever harassed or humiliated the
deceased Smt. Neha on account of bringing less dowry or that any
such misbehaviour was meted out to her by the present petitioner
which could be treated as cruelty within the meaning of Section
498A IPC and thus a prayer was made to discharge her. The trial
court, however, proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner
for the offence under Section 498A IPC by order dated 17.08.2016
which is under challenge in the instant revision petition.
For coming to a conclusion regarding the petitioner’s
arraignment for the offence under Section 498A, the learned trial
court principally relied upon the call details and recordings of
conversion held between the petitioner and the main accused
Hitesh which was collected by the I.O. during investigation. The
trial court inferred from the said call details and recording and
held that these pieces of evidence indicated towards the guilt of
the petitioner for the above offence and accordingly charge was
framed against her.
Shri Nishant Bora, learned counsel representing the
petitioner vehemently urged that even if the recording of the
conversation held inter-se between the present petitioner and the
main accused Pradeep Balach, husband of the deceased is
accepted as such on its face value then also, no inference can be
drawn that the petitioner ever harassed or humiliated the
deceased at any point of time before her marriage. Referring to
the statement of Smt. Parvati Devi- mother of the deceased,
Hitesh Kumar- her brother and Bhimaram- her father recorded
(4 of 7)
[CRLR-51/2017]
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Shri Bora contended that in all of these
statements, the allegation of harassment meted out to the
deceased on account of demand of dowry is against Pradeep. As
per Shri Bora, these witnesses have conjectured that the
petitioner and her husband were also responsible for the death of
Smt. Nirmala. Referring to the statement of Bhimaram, Shri Bora
pointed out that as per him, Pradeep had taken the deceased Smt.
Nirmala to Gadra Road on 18.04.2015 who called her mother
Parvati Devi and expressed an apprehension that she would be
killed by Pradeep and Hitesh. In this statement, Shri Bhimaram
did not make any allegation whatsoever that the petitioner was
responsible for harassing or humiliating the deceased Smt.
Nirmala on account of demand of dowry or even otherwise. He
urged that all these witnesses being the closest relatives of the
deceased have unanimously alleged that Pradeep was carrying on
with another woman and wanted to get rid of his wife so that he
could remarry and that he killed Smt. Nirmala to fulfill this design.
He thus urged that the revision petition deserves to be accepted
and the impugned order framing charge against the petitioner
should be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Siddharth
Karwasara, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2
complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by
the petitioner’s counsel. They contended that in the FIR as well as
in the statements of Bhimaram- father of the deceased, Parvati
Devi- her mother, Hitesh- her brother, there are specific
allegations that Pradeep was having an extramarital affair with
(5 of 7)
[CRLR-51/2017]
another woman and wanted to get rid of Nirmala so that he could
remarry. They further drew the Court’s attention to the recording
of the conversation held between the petitioner and Pradeep soon
before the incident and tried to persuade the court to accept that
the tenor of the conversation establishes the petitioner’s guilt for
the offence under Section 498A IPC. They thus craved rejection of
revision petition.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the material available on record.
The highest allegation narrated in the detailed typed FIR
submitted by Bhimaram, father of the deceased, is that Pradeep
Balach, husband of deceased was having love affair with another
girl for the last about 2 years and owing this, he was harassing the
deceased and demanded that she should procure a house and
Rs.10,00,000/- from her father or else she would be killed and
Pradeep would remarry. In the entire FIR, there is not even a
whisper of any kind against anyone apart from Pradeep. Even in
the statements of the star prosecution witnesses, Bhinyaram,
Hitesh and Smt. Parvati Devi, primary allegations of harassment
and humiliation meted out to the deceased for the past two years
are against Pradeep Balach. An omnibus allegation was set out
against two Devars Hitesh and Naresh, mother-in-law, father-in-
law that they were also harassing the deceased for demand of
dowry. As per these witnesses, Pradeep used to physically torture
the deceased because of his extramarital affair. On 15.04.2015,
Nirmala called her mother Smt. Parvati Devi and told her that
(6 of 7)
[CRLR-51/2017]
Pradeep was forcing her to go to Gadra Road. Her mother-in-law,
who was at Jodhpur, also presented her to go to Gadra Road and
told Pradeep and Hitesh that they should finish the work for which
they are going. On 16.04.2015, her husband and Hitesh forcibly
boarded her into the car for going to Gadra Road and the
petitioner talked to Pradeep and tried to make him
understand on which Pradeep agreed that he would not
repeat the mistake in future. On 17/18.04.2015, Nirmala again
called her mother Parvati Devi and told that she was feeling
uneasy and probably would be killed. The witness did not believe
the deceased. However, in the night intervening 19/20.04.2015,
Pradeep murdered Nirmala. On going through these statements, it
is manifestly clear that there is no such allegation against the
petitioner which can justify framing of charge against her for the
offence under Section 498A IPC. Much water was sought to be
drawn by the learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Kadwasara,
learned counsel representing the complainant from the mobile
conversation held between the main accused Pradeep Balach and
the present petitioner; the transcript whereof is available on
record. In such conversation, Pradeep is heard hurling insinuations
indicating that he would do away with the deceased. However, the
petitioner is heard telling that people would treat him to be at
fault and that it would be a stigma on him:
Þviu dks gh yksx dslh uk uk dyad yx tklhß
Considering the tenor of the conversation, this Court is duly
satisfied that the petitioner was trying hard to convince her son
Pradeep not to go ahead with his evil design of killing the
(7 of 7)
[CRLR-51/2017]
deceased. In view of what has been narrated hereinabove, this
Court is of the firm opinion that there is no material worth the
name on the record of the case so as to justify framing of charge
under Section 498A IPC against the present petitioner. Though, it
is true that at the stage of framing of charge, an exhaustive
reappreciation of evidence is not warranted but nevertheless,
there has to be basic material which can convince the Court to
proceed against the accused for the particular charge and then
only, an order can be passed in terms of Section 228 Cr.P.C. As
discussed above, there is absolute lack of material which can
satisfy the court regarding involvement of the accused petitioner
for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
As a consequence of the above discussion, I am of the
opinion that the trial court committed a grave error in framing
charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A
IPC and the impugned order cannot be sustained to the
petitioner’s extent.
Resultantly, the revision petition is accepted. The impugned
order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer in Sessions Case No.126/2015
is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent charge was directed
to be framed against the petitioner for the offence under Section
498A IPC. She is discharged from the said offence. The trial court
shall proceed against the other accused persons as per law.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.
tikam daiya/