Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surender Kumar & Anr. vs . State Of Rajasthan & Anr. on 6 January, 2016
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1249/2015 Surender Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of order : 6.1.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr.MK Garg, Mr.Kaushal Gautam, for the petitioner. Mr.OP Rathi, P.P. <><><> Issue notice to the respondents.
Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State. Since the matter is being tried as a State case in the trial Court, it is not necessary to hear the complainant respondent at this stage.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and finally decided today itself.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per the admitted case as setup in the charge-sheet, the deceased Smt.Anjana was married to the petitioner 20 years ago. The Police filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 498, 304 and 34 IPC. The trial Court has mechanically framed a charge against the accused for the offence under Section 304B IPC, whereas such charge could not have been framed in view of the admitted fact that the marriage of the petitioner and the deceased was solemnized 20 years ago.
2
Learned Public Prosecutor candidly concedes that in view of the admitted situation that the petitioner and the deceased were married about 20 years ago, the charge under Section 304B IPC could not have been framed against the accused. He points out that the investigating agency filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304 IPC only.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the material available on record.
It is an admitted position from the Police papers filed on record that the deceased Anjana was married to the petitioner about 20 years back. Two children were born to them and the elder daughter is of 15 years. Thus, the petitioner cannot be charged for the offence under Section 304B IPC, which reads as below:-
"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."
3The impugned order appears to have been passed owing to inadvertence.
Thus, the revision deserves to succeed and is hereby allowed. The order dated 31.8.2015 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Prevention of Woman Atrocity) Cases, Bikaner is hereby quashed and set aside. The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order on the question of framing of charges against the accused after hearing the parties.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/tarun/