Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Babu Lal Sahu And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 1 August, 2018
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 641/2018
1. Babu Lal Sahu S/o Shri Gopal Lal Sahu , R/o 1/554,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Babu Lal Sahu , R/o 1/554,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
3. Smt. Hemlata Sahu W/o Babu Lal Sahu , R/o 1/554,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
4. Rahul Sahu S/o Shri Babu Lal Sahu , R/o 1/554, Malviya
Nagar, Jaipur.
5. Manju Sahu W/o Shri Niraj Sahu , R/o 94B, Gurjar Ki
Thadi, Sodala, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Lal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
01/08/2018
1. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 23.03.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.1090/2017, whereby Court below has framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Section 304-B, 34, 201 of I.P.C.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that marriage of petitioner No.2 (Sanjay Kumar Sahu) with the deceased took place on 11.02.2007. Deceased died due to medical ailments on (2 of 4) [CRLR-641/2018] 02.10.2010. F.I.R. was filed on 12.10.2010. Petitioner No.1 (Babu Lal Sahu) is father-in-law, petitioner No.2 (Sanjay Kumar Sahu) is husband, petitioner No. 3 (Smt. Hemlata Sahu) is mother-in-law and petitioner No.4 (Rahul Sahu) is brother-in-law and petitioner No.5 (Manju Sahu) is sister-in-law of the deceased.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that after lodging of the F.I.R., Police investigated the matter and submitted a negative final report. Learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence under Section 304-B, 34-B, 201 of I.P.C., and committed the case. Court below has framed charges against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, aggrieved by which the present revision petition has been filed.
4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that there is delay of ten days in lodging of F.I.R. Police after due investigation concluded that offences are not made out and has submitted a negative final report. It is also contended that in the F.I.R., it was mentioned that a complaint was sent by registered post by father of the deceased on 03.09.2010. It is argued that in that complaint, during investigation statement of deceased was recorded by the Police, wherein, deceased specifically stated that she is sick for last five to six months and her husband is looking- after her treatment. She has also mentioned in the statement that her husband and in-laws are looking-after her and there is no demand of dowry. She has also mentioned that she has no grievance against her in-laws.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention towards the reply given by Dr. C.L. Nawal, Professor Medicine, SMS Hospital, Jaipur to the Assistant Police Commissioner, Circle Sanganer, Jaipur, wherein he has mentioned that deceased (3 of 4) [CRLR-641/2018] remained admitted at the SMS Hospital from 14.07.2010 to 24.07.2010 and then from 07.08.2010 to 05.09.2010. At the first instance, deceased was suffering from Pancytopenia with Splenic Abscess and on the second occasion she was admitted for Pyrexia Hepatic failure and Hepatities Cryptogenic with severe Jaundice and Coma. Doctor has also mentioned that when the deceased was admitted on the second occasion her condition was not stable and the ailments with which she was suffering, there were minimal chances of her survival.
6. It is contended that the deceased was in Coma but later on she expired on 02.10.2010. It is also contended that there was no material before the Court below to take cognizance against the petitioners and there was no justification for the Court below to frame charges against the petitioners.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal revision petition. His contention is that offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. is made out. It is also contended that petitioners did not wait for the family members to arrive and cremated the deceased.
8. I have considered the contentions.
9. Death in this case has not been caused by any burns or bodily injuries and it is not caused otherwise than under normal circumstances. It is a case where death is caused by ailments with which deceased was suffering as is evident from the Medical Report submitted by the Dr. C.L. Nawal, Professor Medicine, SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Deceased was suffering from severe Jaundice and Hepatic failure which has resulted into death, hence, offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C., is not made out against the present petitioners.
(4 of 4) [CRLR-641/2018]
10. The Police after due investigation had submitted a negative final report. In the earlier complaint lodged by father of the deceased who is complainant in the present case, police examined the deceased and she clearly stated to the Police that her husband is taking care of her and is getting her treated and she has no complaint, whatsoever, against her in-laws with regard to dowry. There was no evidence namesake before the Court below for framing charges against the petitioners. From the F.I.R. itself it is revealed that family members of the deceased were present at the time of funeral and deceased died due to ailment. 11 In view of the same, the revision petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. Order dated 23.03.2018, passed by Court below is quashed and set-aside. Stay application stands disposed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Amit/23 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)