Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sajjan Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 March, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Revision No.1805 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1805 of 2009
Date of Decision: March 03, 2010
Sajjan Kumar ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Jatinder Nara, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.H.S.Benniwal,DAG Haryana
Mr.Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 7.4.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad,whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) to summon Kamlesh and Kavita as additional accused was dismissed.
Prosecution case, in brief as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 2 of the impugned order, reads as under:- Criminal Revision No.1805 of 2009 2
"2. As per prosecution case, on 23.10.2008 telephonic information was received by the police that Smt. Antim was admitted at Escorts Medical Centre Faridabad as a poisoning case. ASI Desh Raj went there but the doctor declared patient to be unfit for making the statement. Later on, the adoptive father of Antim namely Sajjan Kumar approached the police and got recorded his statement as per which, he was resident of village Bhadani District Jhajjar. He had adopted his niece Antim alias Monu when she was just eight months old. He had brought her up. She studied upto to BA. Thereafter, he performed marriage of his niece Antim alias Monu on 15.11.2006 with Ombir son of Rajbir resident of village Machhgar Tehsil Ballabgarh by spending the amount and dowry beyond his capacity. Three months after the marriage, Antim came to village Bhadani and told his brothers Ramesh and Jagdish that her husband Ombir, mother in law Mahabiri, father in law Rajbir; and sisters in law Kamlesh & Kavita used to taunt her that she was ugly and that her uncle had not fulfilled the demands. They had a loan of rupees three lacs on them and her uncle had promised to clear the said loan. Hearing this, he (Sajjan Kumar) along with his brothers Ramesh and Jagdish went to village Machhgar alongwith Anitm at the place of her in laws and handed over rupees two lacs to Rajbir in the presence of Ombir. Even thereafter, in laws of Antim kept on maltreating her. Complainant and her daughter kept on tolerating this and from time to time, he also used to fulfill their small demands but he could not fulfill the demand of Criminal Revision No.1805 of 2009 3 the in laws for Santro Car, though he had promised to fulfill this demand at appropriate time. It was further stated by the complainant Sajjan that on 22.10.2008 at 10 a.m., his nephew Joni went to village Machhgar at the place of in laws of Antim taking "Seedha (customary gifts) on Diwali. He found that Antim was confined in a room which was locked. On his repeated requests, Antim was brought out of the room and as she came out, she fell down on the floor and told him that those people will kill her and she had not been given meals for a week and that she was being maltreated by way of Jadu-Tona through Tantrik. She also told him that she was also beaten and hot salt and mustard are placed on her hands. She requested him to call he uncle Sajjan and other family members, so that she could be taken from that place;otherwise, she will be finished. Joni narrated all this to the complainant on telephone, who asked him to stay there. He along with his brothers and other people reached village Machhgar at 4 p.m. and met Antim alias Monu, who was found lying on a cot in semi-unconscious state. She requested him to take her from that place; otherwise, she will be finished by her father in law, mother in law, husband and sisters in law. Complainant talked with father in law, mother in law and husband of Antim present there, who felt enraged and told them that they could not take away Antim until and unless they execute divorce papers. They further threatened the complainant that in case they take away Antim, they will report the matter to the police. Both the sides gathered in police station Sadar Ballabgarh at 6 p.m. on that day i.e. Criminal Revision No.1805 of 2009 4 22.10.2008. Considering the precarious condition of Antim and after doing some writing work at the police station and considering that further proceedings shall be taken after the treatment of Antim, complainant took her away from police station at 7 p.m. and brought her to the place of his sister in Sector 9, Faridabad. As her condition deteriorated, she was got admitted at Ashwani hospital. The doctor there at advised him to admit her in some big hospital. After arranging for money, Antim was taken to Escorts Medical Centre. It was stated by the complainant that he was sure that for the greed of dowry, the accused through the medium of some Tantrik had administered some slow poison with an intention to murder her. He had also been told that some medicine had been given to Antim on the pretext of treatment on the morning of 22.10.2008"
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
On the basis of the complaint made by Sajjan Kumar, prosecution case was set in motion. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 342, 307 IPC. During investigation of the case, injured Antim alias Monu expired on 27.10.2008 and an offence under Section 304-B IPC was added. Challan was presented against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. After recording of the statement of the complainant, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. praying that the sisters in law of the deceased, namely, Kamlesh and Kavita be also summoned to face the trial as accused. The trial Court in paras 12 and 13 of the impugned order has observed as under:- Criminal Revision No.1805 of 2009 5
"12.In the present case, as the complaint Ex.PA reveals, the only allegation against Kamlesh and Kavita is that they used to taunt deceased Antim alias Monu that she was ugly and that their demands had not been fulfilled. There is no allegation that she was ever beaten or tortured by Kamlesh and Kavita. Said fact is admitted by Sajjan Kumar PW1 in cross-examination that he had not stated in the complaint Ex.PA that Kamlesh and Kavita used to beat Antim. It is further revealed that amount of Rs. 2 lacs in cash was given by Sajjan to father in law Rajbir in the presence of husband Ombir. Presence of sisters in law i.e. Kamlesh and Kavita is not shown at all. Then, there are general allegations that in laws used to make demand for Santro car and money from time to time. Regarding the occurrence of 22.10.2008, it is specifically stated in the complaint that complainant Sajjan had talked with father in law, mother in law and husband. Presence of sisters in law i.e. Kamlesh and Kavita is not shown at that time. PW1 Sajjan Kumar tried to make improvement in his statement in this regard but was confronted during cross-examination that he had not mentioned about presence of Kavita and Kamlesh on 22.10.2008.
13.The question is that whether with these types of vague allegations against Kamlesh and Kavita, should they be summoned to face trial by invoking 319 Cr.P.C? It is all the more important to mention here that both these sisters in law Kamlesh Criminal Revision No.1805 of 2009 6 and Kavita were married since prior to the marriage of deceased Antim alias Monu with accused Ombir. Said fact was disclosed during arguments by learned defence counsel at bar and the said statement made at bar by him has not been controverted either by the prosecution or by learned counsel for the complainant. So the question is whether married sisters in law should be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial alongwith already challaned accused, particularly when improvements have been made by PW1 in his testimony and when he admitted that sisters in law had never beaten her and there is only general allegation that in laws used to make demand for Santro car and money."
In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (2)RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.
The reasons given by the trial Court while dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C are sound reasons. The trial Court has observed that there were no allegations against Kamlesh and Kavita that they had ever given beatings or tortured the deceased. Rupees two lakhs had been given by the complainant to the father-in-law of the deceased in the presence of her husband. Since the general allegations had been levelled against Kamlesh and Kavita, who are married sisters-in-law of the Criminal Revision No.1805 of 2009 7 deceased, the trial Court rightly held that there were no grounds to summon them to face the trial as accused. No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(Sabina) Judge March 03, 2009 arya