AMAR SARAN,J - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate. By means of this petition the petitioners have challenged an order dated 19.2;2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No. 4, Sultanpur dismissing the criminal revision against an order dated 7.2.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Mag­istrate, Sultanpur accepting the final report and rejecting the protest petition and the cognizance order dated 6.11.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur in a ease under section 498-A/302 IPC. It is argued by the learned 'Counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 19.2.2007 was passed without hearing the petitioners and in this view of the matter the decision laid down- in Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. M/s. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Limited and another, 2009 (65) ACC 629 (SC) was breached.
(2.) IN Raghu Raj Singh Rousha's case it was observed that if an order on a criminal revision is passed Without hearing the ag­grieved party or accused, it will violate section 401(2)-Cr.P:C. and for this reason the order of the Revision Court should be set aside. In the present case this averment ap­pears to be incorrect because the order it­self notes that the revisionist-complainant (present O.P. No. 2) and the opposite par­ties (the petitioners in the present case) were heard through an amicus curiae and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any violation of section 401 (2). Moreover, to obviate this technical ob­jection, I have myself heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners at length on the merits of the matter too. The learned Magistrate has ac­cepted the final report and rejected the protest petition by holding that there was reason to believe that the neck of the de­ceased was caught in the belt of the irriga­tion Pumping set. The Revisional Court has, however, not accepted this finding. I also find that a perusal of the post-mortem report shows that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. There was a ligature mark 26 cm. x 3 cm. on right side base of neck just below thyroid and above right clavicle starting from front of neck just above supra sternal notch going backward posteriorly and transversely up to the middle portion of the back of the neck. There were other injuries including traumatic swelling on led parietal occipital region 6 cm. x 4 cm. contusion on left side of abdomen and on the dorsal aspect of right wrist joint and right side of chest just below right clavicle, abraded contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. on the anterior aspect of left knee joint and right side of the chest. I think that when this smarter is seri­ously examined by the Trial Court and the doctor is also produced, only then a deei-sion can be taken whether the deceased was murdered or she had died accidentally by her neck being caught in the engine of Pumping Set.
(3.) I think the learned Magistrate ap­pears to have exceeded his jurisdiction in reaching this conclusion at this stage. Moreover the death of Neelam Devi had taken place on 19,2.2005 within five years of the marriage, which took place on 30.11.2000. A demand of Rs. 50,000/- cash, motorcycle and other dowry items was al­leged. The cause of death was certainly un­natural as the incident had taken place in the Sasural of the deceased and the infor­mant-opposite party No. 2, father of the deceased, not being an eye-witness of the incident, his statement was of no conse­quence. Also the fact that the grandfather of the deceased Babulal stated that he was told that Neelam had djed by getting caught in the engine, was no reason for re­jecting the protest petition and accepting the final report. The reliance on the hearsay evidence of witnesses, which found favour of the Magistrate before.whom they stated that they leant that Neelam had acciden­tally died because she had got caught in a pumping set, was not justified. ;;