KHUSHI RAM & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-246
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 05,2016

Khushi Ram And Others Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 21.2.2002, passed by learned 17th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bulandshahr in S.T. No. 802 of 2001 ( State Vs. Rajendra and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 1999, under Sections 498 -A and 307 I.P.C. and ¾ of D.P. Act, Police Station Siyana, District Bulandshahr, whereby the learned court below has framed charges against the revisionists. Heard Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionists and learned A.G.A.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the charges framed against the revisionist under Section 147, 302/149, 304 -B and 498A I.P.C. and ¾ of D.P. Act were not warranted as there is no material on record for framing charge under aforesaid sections. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the statement of Rajkali, mother of Maya, the deceased, before the Magistrate concerned is very specific that the revisionists are not at all involved in the alleged crime. He has further submitted that the revisionists took Maya from Bulandshahar to Delhi and got her admitted in Safdarjung Hospital and there is no eye witness account of the alleged incident to show the participation of revisionists in the alleged crime and the deceased was living separately from her in laws and with her husband. Therefore framing of charges against the revisionists is illegal and perverse
(3.) Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that the deceased bride has met an unnatural death by burning within 7 years of marriage. Specific roles have been assigned to all the revisionists in the F.I.R. itself which itself is sufficient ground to frame charge. He has further submitted that framing of alternative charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. alongwith Section 304 -B I.P.C. is also necessary in wake of guidelines of Apex and the court below has not committed any illegality by framing charges under the aforesaid sections.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.