- (1.) This revision under section 397 / 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 19.3.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No.271 of 2006, State v. Santosh & others arising out of case crime no.7 of 2004, P.S. Buxa, District Jaunpur, whereby the application 43 kha for discharge, moved on behalf of the revisionists - accused, was rejected and learned trial court directed framing of the charge under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the revisionists. In brief, the facts of the case are that the F.I.R. in this case was lodged on the basis of application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant Ram Narain Yadav - opposite party no.2 on 27.3.2004. In pursuance of order dated 6.4.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate - I, Jaunpur, the F.I.R. was registered at P.S. Buxa, District Jaunpur on 7.5.2004 at 16:10 hours. It was alleged in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that Reena Devi, the daughter of the complainant, was married with revisionist no.1 Santosh Kumar Yadav on 25.5.2003. Revisionists no. 2, 3 & 4 are the brother, father and mother of revisionist no.1 Santosh Kumar Yadav. The revisionists were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and they were not prepared to perform vidai of the deceased. However, on the pursuation of village elders, they took Reena Devi with her on 26.5.2003. After about 15 days, when the girl was brought back to her parents' house, she disclosed that accused persons were pressurizing her to bring a colour T.V. and fridge as dowry. The complainant could not fulfill the demand of dowry and as a consequence thereof, Reena Devi remained with him for about five months till 30.10.2003. On promise of the complainant to fulfill the demand of dowry, the accused persons took away Reena Devi with them on 31.10.2003. Whenever, thereafter, the complainant visited the house of the accused persons, they did not permit the complainant to talk to Reena Devi alone and her mother-in-law Prabhawati Devi used to threat that they would marry their son with another girl if colour T.V., fridge, motorcycle and other articles were not provided. Her husband Santosh Kumar Yadav also used to give threats on telephone. On 20.3.2004 at about 11:30 a.m., Reena Devi informed Ramesh Chandra, the neighbour of the complainant, on telephone that her in-laws may cause any incident with her. On 21.3.2004 at about 7:00 a.m., Acchey Lal, the mediator of the marriage, told the complainant that his daughter died under suspicious circumstances. The complainant went to the house of the accused and found the dead body of his daughter outside the door of the house of the accused covered with a cloth. He suspected that Reena Devi was either poisoned or murdered in any other manner. After panchayatnama and cremation, he gave complaint to the police station Incharge on 22.3.2004, but his F.I.R. was not lodged. Thereafter, the complainant gave report to Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur on 24.3.2004 and thereafter moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 27.3.2004 whereupon the F.I.R. was registered at the police station.
(2.) After investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the police and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the applicants moved an application for discharge on the ground that after marriage, the deceased desired further studies and she took admission in Raj Bahadur Post Graduate College, Gulalpur in B.A. Part - I. Accused Santosh Kumar Yadav was also studying in the same college. The examinations were going on. Suddenly, on 20.3.2004, Reena Devi got ill and suffered severe stomachache, vomiting and diarrhoea. She was treated by Dr. Vijay Kumar and thereafter she was taken to Jaunpur to Dr. R.P. Yadav. She was admitted in the nursing home, but she could not recover and died in the morning of 21.3.2004. Her parents were informed and information regarding death of Reena Devi was given at P.S. Buxa. The deceased was three months pregnant. On postmortem, no visible injury was found on the person of the deceased and the viscera report was also negative and, therefore, no offence was made out. By impugned order dated 5.5.2007, the said discharge application has been rejected on the ground that Reena Devi died within a year of her marriage under suspicious circumstances. Before her death, she was harassed by the accused persons on account of demand of dowry. The death took place at the house of the accused and, therefore, there were sufficient grounds to frame charges against the accused persons. Hence, this revision. I have heard Sri R.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that no injury was found on the person of the deceased in postmortem report. The viscera was preserved and sent to the Government expert. The viscera report rules out any possibility of poisoning. He further contended that Reena Devi died due to illness. She was taken to hospital, but could not survive despite best efforts on the part of the accused - revisionists.
(3.) Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submitted that the deceased was married on 25.5.2003 and died on 21.3.2004 in her sasural under suspicious circumstances and before her death, she was continuously being harassed by the revisionists on account of demand of colour T.V., fridge, motorcycle etc. as dowry. It was further submitted that a tape and needle were found at the time of inquest on the right hand of the deceased, which could only show that some treatment was done, but it does not disclose any illness. There is no medical evidence on record to show any illness and it is for the accused to prove by defence evidence that deceased met her death on account of illness.;