1. This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the 9thth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No.101/13 whereby charges under Section 304-B in alternative 302 in alternative 306 and under Section 498-A of IPC has been framed against the petitioner/accused.
2. It is alleged that deceased Amrita Agrawal, wife of Tarun Agrawal, aged 25 years died on 06.09.2012 in suspicious circumstances by hanging. Therefore, offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against her mother-in-law, two sisters-in-law and the applicant,the husband of the sister-in-law of the deceased.
3. During investigation it was found that the accused persons demanded two lacs rupees as dowry and were harassing the deceased. Husband of the deceased was in the habit of taking alcohol. His mother Shobha Agrawal, Sister Chanda and petitioner Prashant repeatedly 'taunting' the deceased for she did not bring sufficient dowry. On their instigation her husband Tarun Agrawal used to commit cruelty with the deceased. On 26.09.2012, deceased was harassed by her husband, brother-in-law, sisters-in-law and the applicant. She was beaten and threatened and thrown out from the house. Deceased narrated her maternal home and informed all the incidents. She told this to her father, mother accompanied by Govind Agrawal.
4. The father of the deceased accompanied with Govind Agrawal and Anant Agrawal went to her matrimonial home, where all the accused persons were present. Accused persons demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- rupees. Her father Mohan requested that he be given 7-8 days time to arrange such money. After several requests by Mohan, the deceased Amrita was allowed to stay in her in-laws house. The accused persons also threatened him that if Rs. 2,00,000/- rupees is not arranged, Amrita will be dealt and Tarun will go for second marriage.
5. On 8.8.2012 when Mamta Agrawal came to her matrimonial home, she was morose. When asked for the reasons she narrated that if the money is not arranged she will be killed by her husband, her mother-in-law and her sisters-in-law and husband of sister-in-law applicant Prashant Agrawal. On 6.9.2012 when by chance father Mohan went to her in-laws place, he came to know about the death of his daughter Amrita Agrawal. Similar statement has been given by her mother Shobha Agrawal and brother Amit Agrawal.
6. Charge-sheet was filed. After committal of the case, 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, vide order dated 19.02.2013 framed charge against the accused persons including the petitioner.
7. The petitioner claimed that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. No evidence is available against the applicant. The applicant married with Pooja, the sister-in-law of the deceased on 19.11.2002 and he is not living at her maternal house. He is residing at B-8, Samadhiya Colony, Taraganj, Lashkar. The petitioner has not committed any offence. Therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner vide order dated 19.02.2012 be set-aside.
8. Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the application and submitted that presence of the applicant has been permanently shown by the witnesses at the matrimonial home of the deceased. It would not be correct to say that deceased was not subjected to harassment by the applicant.
9. Cruelty was allegedly committed with the deceased for demand of dowry. She was subjected to cruelty as contemplated in a Clause "A" and Clause "B" to explanation of Section "498-A." Truely that such cruelty has been practised by her husband and his relatives. The applicant do not claimed that he is not relative of her husband.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on "Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P." reported in (2012) 10 SCC 471 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. held that "a casual reference to the family members of the applicant (un-married sister and elder brother of husband) in FIR as co-accused (as well as to parents of husband) - Absence of any specific allegation and prima facie case against co-accused held - Proceedings quashed."
11. This citation is not applicable in the present case. For the reason that the name of the applicant is not casually mentioned in the present case. There is specific allegation of disclosure of active involvement of the applicant.
True, that for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or other relations cannot, in all cases be held to be involved in the case of demand of dowry.
11. In "Dasrath v. State of M.P. (AIR 2010 SC 2592)", the Apex Court held that:-
"1. that the death of a woman has been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances;
2. that such death has been caused or has occurred within seven years of her marriage; and
3. that soon before her death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry as also the presumption under Section 113-B Indian Evidence Act are fully established the case of prosecution".
12. In the present case after going through the Police statements it cannot be denied that there was no definite evidence of ill-treatment having immediate proximity to date of death of the deceased. Thus, the charge framed for ill treatment for dowry does not seem to be without any basis. At this moment presumption as to abetment of suicide to the deceased under Section 113 of Evidence Act could not be ruled out. Besides, at the stage of framing of charge the Court is not to hold an elaborate enquiry. Only primafacie case is to be seen. In depth appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the stage of framing of charge. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the material produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then charge has to be framed.
13. Meticulous finding of materials at this stage is uncalled for and the standard of test and judgment which is finally applied before recording the finding of conviction against the accused is not to be applied, at the stage of framing the charge. A strong suspicion based on the material of record, would be sufficient to frame the charge.
14. That being so, the impugned order is not called for interference. Hence, the present petition under Section 497 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. sans merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.