HARSH KUMAR,J. - (1.) The revision have been filed against the impugned order dated 21.5.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.5, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No.400 of 2013 (State v. Pradeep Burnwal and others) under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Phoolpur, District Azamgarh allowing the application 28-B of prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and summoning Smt. Mamta Burnwal and Sunita Burnwal for trial together with the co-accused Pradeep Burnwal and others. Feeling aggrieved, summoned accused Mamta Burnwal and Sunita Burnwal have filed this revision with a prayer for setting aside the impugned order.
(2.) At the stage of admission, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 filed Vakalatnama and put in appearance.
(3.) The learned counsel for revisionists contended that the impugned order is wrong on facts and law; that the F.I.R. was lodged with false and incorrect allegations falsely implicating as many as seven persons including the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, two brothers-in-law (Jeth), and two sisters-in-law (Jethani), all the family members of the husband of deceased excluding only one brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Jeth & Jethani) for the offence of dowry death of Smt. Varsha Burnawal; that the revisionists reside separately as have been admitted by P.W.-1 in his cross examination; that in the false F.I.R. revisionists were also named being Jethanis of the deceased without assigning any specific role to them; that upon investigation charge sheet was filed against five out of the seven accused persons and no charge-sheet was filed against the revisionists as no cogent evidence was found against them; that the deceased was daughter-in-law of Subhash Chandra Burnawal and the revisionists are also daughters-in-law of accused Subhash Chandra Burnawal being wives of his sons Sandeep Burnawal and Vinay Burnawal respectively; that the position of revisionists is similar to that of deceased and there was no reason for making demand of dowry by them from the deceased, their sister-in-law or treating her with cruelty for non-fulfilment of alleged demand of dowry; that in the statements on oath of the PW-1, 2 and 3, copies filed at annexure-4, 5 and 6, it have been stated that Subhash Chandra, Pradeep, Vinay and Sandeep had made complaint of not giving Safari vehicle at the time of Bida of deceased, after marriage and the revisionists have not been named for making such complaint; that the I.O. had rightly not charge-sheeted the revisionists and there is no probability of revisionists being held guilty for dowry death of their younger sister-in-law; that the learned trial court has passed impugned order summoning the revisionists only on the basis of prima facie case which is wrong and illegal; that for the purposes of summoning any person for trial together with the co-accused under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. mere satisfaction of prima facie case is not enough and the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter; that the learned trial court ought to have dismissed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C; that by setting aside the impugned order, summoning the revisionists, the revision be allowed.;