POOJA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved by the order dated August 9, 2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, summoning the petitioners as additional accused to face trial exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. alongwith their co -accused Rajiv and Vandana. Petitioner No. 1 -Pooja is sister of Rajiv whereas petitioner No. 2 is the brother -in -law i.e. husband of petitioner No. 1. Both the petitioners were declared innocent. It will be relevant to refer to the main allegations in the FIR which has been lodged at the instance of complainant Bimla alleging that she is mother of deceased Meena who was married to Rajiv. After marriage, Meena was maltreated by her husband, mother -in -law Vandana, sister -in -law Pooja and brother -in -law Rohit for not brining adequate dowry. A male child had been born to the couple. After the birth of child, mother -in -law of Meena demanded gold articles whereas as Rajiv allegedly demanded car. Deceased Meena was given beatings for not meeting the demand of dowry. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant was told by Meena on telephone a night before the incident that Pooja and Rohit, petitioners had abused her and taunted her. On April 19,2010, a telephonic information was received by the complainant that Meena had consumed poison resulting in her death in P.G.I. M.S. Rohtak. PW1 Bimla in her examination -in -chief had reiterated the allegations in the FIR. She specifically stated that the deceased had told her on telephone that Pooja and her husband on April 18, 2010 were present in their house and they had participated in the act of beating on the ground that her parents had not giving dowry at the time of birth of Raghav.

(2.) THE trial Court had relied upon the statement of PW1 Bimla besides taking into consideration the statements of Somnath and Rajinder, eye -witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein there are specific allegations against Pooja and Rohit, the present petitioners, regarding demand of dowry and harassment, opted to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioners as additional accused.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment in Micheal Machado v. C.B.I. and anther,, 2000 (2) RCR (Crl.) 75 to contend that summoning of the persons as additional accused should not be based merely on suspicion but there should be reasonable prospect of convicting them. Reliance has been placed on few judgments of this Court where the orders under Section 319 Cr.P.C. have been set aside against the married sister -in -law who was staying separately much prior to the marriage of the deceased. Reliance in this context was made on Azad and another v. State of Haryana,, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 421, Rajinder Mohan Kashyap v. Om Parkash Sharma,, 2005 (1) RCR (Crl.) 274, Harjinder Kaur and others v. State of Punjab,, 2004 (4) RCR (Crl.) 332 and MRs. Poonam v. State of Punjab,, 2007 (2) RCR (Crl.) 712.