Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 498A/304B in State vs . Krishna on 21 February, 2014Matching Fragments
10.After filing of supplementary charge sheet against present accused, the present case was committed to the court of Sessions as the case was exclusively triable by it.
11.The ld.Predecessor of this court after hearing the arguments on the point of charge, had prima facie found material on record to State Vs. Krishna FIR NO: 720/06 frame charge against present accused for the offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and in the alternative u/s 302/34 IPC and for having committed offence u/s 174A IPC. The present accused pleaded not guilty and had claimed trial.
77.I have heard Ld.Addl.PP for state and ld.defence counsel Sh.G.P.Thareja for accused. I have also carefully perused the evidence recorded in the present case as well as in the previous sessions case No.107/2008.
78.It was contended by ld.defence counsel that in the present case, accused deserves to be acquitted for the offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC as convicts Dilbagh Singh, Pardeep and Sandeep, who had faced a separate trial regarding the same State Vs. Krishna FIR NO: 720/06 allegations, have already been acquitted for the offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC vide judgment dated 18.09.2009 of Sh.N.K.Kaushik, Ld.ASJ-02 (as he was then). It was further submitted by ld.defence counsel that the allegations against convicts Dilbagh Singh, Pardeep and Sandeep and the present accused are the same and indivisible and since the present accused could not attend the previous trial alongwith convicts Dilbagh Singh, Pardeep and Sandeep, therefore, present accused also deserves to be acquitted for the offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC as no incriminating evidence has come on record against her in the present case. It was further submitted by the ld.defence counsel that order of acquittal of convicts Dilbagh Singh, Pardeep and Sandeep for the offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC has become final and binding as State has not challenged said acquittal before any appellate court till date.
100.In the light of aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, since allegations against present accused were indivisible and inseparable from the allegations made against convicts Dilbagh, Pardeep and Sandeep, who have been State Vs. Krishna FIR NO: 720/06 acquitted for the offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC, even present accused could not have been charged for the offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion, when accused could not have been charged for the offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC, question of her conviction u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC does not arise. Therefore, on this ground alone, present accused deserves to be acquitted for the offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
101.Further, in the matter of Raja Ram and Dandu's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had extended the benefit of acquittal to those convicts who were not present before it in appeal when allegations against non-appealing accused were also the same.
102.Applying the analogy of aforementioned judgments to the present case, present accused also can be extended the benefit of acquittal u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC although she was not facing the trial with convicts Dilbagh, Pardeep and Sandeep, who were eventually acquitted for the offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.