- (1.) K. N. Sinha, J. The above two revisions arise out of the same judgment hence taken up together for hearing and disposed of.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present revisions are that on the report of Smt. Minakshi Verma, Opposite party No. 2 in revision No. 472 of 2003, the case was investigated and charge-sheet was filed against revisionist and others in case crime No, 161/02. This charge-sheet was filed against Santosh Kumar Verma, Phool Chand Adhupia, Satya Prakash, Smt. Kamla Devi, Smt. Anita alias Guddi Raj Kumar and Smt. Shashi Verma under Sections 498-A, 307, 323, 506, IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. THE Magistrate committed the case to Session Court where order for framing of charges under aforesaid sections was passed on 28-11-2002. In consequence of the said order, the accused Santosh Kumar Verma, Satya Prakash, Phool Chand Adhupia and Raj Kumar Verma were charged for the offence under Sections 323/34, 307/34 and 506, IPC Santosh Kumar was further charged for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Against the said order framing the charge, the accused approached this Court by filing criminal misc. application No. 40 of 2003 which was decided on 7-1-2003 quashing the order framing charges and it was directed that the trial Court shall rehear the parties on the point of framing of charges under Section 307, IPC and then pass a speaking order before proceeding to frame the charges. In compliance of the said order, the learned trial Court heard the parties Counsel and passed the impugned order dated 14-2-2003. By the impugned order applicants, Santosh Kumar Verma, Smt. Kamla Devi, Smt. Anita alias Guddi and co-accused Smt. Shashi Verma were ordered to be charged for the offence under Section 307/34, IPC. However, co-accused Phool Chand Adhupia, Satya Prakash and Raj Kumar Verma were discharged for the offence under Section 307/34, IPC. The revisionist Santosh Kumar, Smt. Kamla Devi and Smt. Anita alias Guddi who were ordered to be charged for the offence under Section 307, IPC filed the revision No. 472 of 2003 and opposite party No. 2 Smt. Minakshi Verma filed revision No. 487 of 2003 against Phool Chand Adhupia, Satya Prakash Verma and Raj Kumar Verma as they were discharged.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order. This Court by order dated 7-1-2003 had directed to rehear the parties on the point of framing of charge under Section 307, IPC. A close scrutiny of the impugned order shows that there were two incidents with lady Smt. Minakshi Verma. One which related to offence dated 3-3-2002 and the other which related to the offence dated 3-5-2002. The order framing above charge under Section 307, IPC was passed on the occurrence which took place on 3-3-2002, on which date the kerosene oil was sprinkled on the body of Smt. Minakshi Verma but revisionist could not lit the fire as some acquainted person appeared. However, in the next occurrence dated 3-5-2002, the neck of the complainant Smt. Minakshi Verma was pressed and she was directed to bring Rs. 8 lacs. The trial Court found that as Smt. Minakshi Verma was asked to bring a dowry of Rs. 8 lacs hence, it could not be said that there was any intention to kill her by pressing the neck. It is settled principle that it is the intention of the accused which is material for proceeding under Section 307, IPC. In this case the accused had intended to get dowry hence, it cannot be said that they had any intention to kill informant Smt. Minakshi Verma. Consequently the order of the trial Judge in respect of this occurrence is perfectly justified as according to the FIR Satya Prakash, Phool Chand Adhupia and Raj Kumar Verma were involved in the incident hence, they were rightly discharged for the offence under Section 307, IPC. So far as the case of revisionist of revision No. 472 of 2003 is concerned, the allegation against them is that they had sprinkled kerosene oil on the body of informant Smt. Minakshi Verma but when someone known to the husband of Smt. Minakshi Verma appeared at the scene of occurrence, the accused could not put fire on her body and lady was saved. The FIR Annexure 1 contains the recital of this occurrence in the body. The informant Smt. Minakshi Verma had mentioned in the FIR that Santosh Kumar, Smt. Kamla Devi (mother-in-law ). Smt. Anita alias Guddi (sister-in-law) and Shashi Verma (sister-in-law) sprinkled the kerosene on the body of the informant Smt. Minakshi Verma and made an attempt to put fire but did not succeed by arrival of someone acquainted to informant's husband. This act shows revisionist intended to kill her and also made an attempt towards the same by doing the act of pouring kerosene oil on the body of informant and making an attempt to put fire.;