T.P.S.MANN,J - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the present revision against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon on 18.5.2006 whereby the application filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon Meenu and Vinod, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, as accused, was dismissed.
(2.) THE FIR was registered on 16.1.2005 on the basis of a statement made by the present petitioner against Ajay, Smt. Bimlesh Devi and Ram Avtar for causing the death of his daughter Kusum by burning her after pouring kerosene on her. While Kusum was lying admitted in Safdarjung Hospital in a burnt condition, her statement was recorded by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi on 17.1.2005. In her statement, Smt. Kusum stated that after she had cooked the meals and her in-laws had taken it, they started quarreling with her saying that she did not know household job and appeared to be quarrelsome. They further said that they would keep her only if she brought Rs. 2.5 lacs. She told them that her father was a poor person, who has six daughters and thus, not in a position to give the amount. At this, her monther-in-law Bimlesh Devi and her father-in-law Ram Avtar caught hold of her whereafter her husband Ajay sprinkled kerosene upon her whereas Meenu, her sister-in-law and Vinod, her brother-in-law, set her on fire. She started shouting which attracted Gudan and Satbir, who also did not save her. She ran outside but soon fell down. After conclusion of the investigation of the case, the police presented challan against husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Kusum whereas Meenu and Vinod were left out. After framing of charges against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, the prosecution examined Sh. R. Chopra, Sub-Divisional Magistrate as PW-1, who proved statement Ex. PA made before him by deceased Kusum. The prosecution also examined Dr. Chanderkant as PW-2 who proved copy of postmortem report Ex. PF. An application was thereafter moved by the prosecution for summoning Meenu and Vinod as accused to stand trial for the various offences. The same was, however, declined by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on the ground that Vinod had neither been arrested by the police nor found innocent. Mere fact that the police could not arrest him was not sufficient to summon him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. As regards Meenu it was held that she was a minor girl and in the natural course of human conduct, a minor girl would not burn her Bhabhi (sister-in-law). Accordingly, it was concluded that it was not desirable to summon Meenu as additional accused. The application qua Vinod was held to be not maintainable. The prayer of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was, accordingly, dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from a bare reading of the dying declaration of Smt. Kusum, it was clear that both Meenu and Vinod took active part in the commission of the offence. After Bimlesh Devi and Ram Avtar caught hold of the victim, kerosene was sprinkled by Ajay and thereafter both Meenu and Vinod set the victim on fire. Thus, there was sufficient material available on the file to summon both Meenu and Vinod as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to stand trial along with the three accused, who were already before the Court.;