RATHORE, J. - (1.) THE instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 44/2001, by which charge under Section 304B IPC has been framed against the accused-petitioner.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 19.08.1991 a report came to be lodged by Shri Ram Kumar Aswani and Shri Naresh Kumar Aswani to S.P., Jaipur City, Jaipur, wherein it was, alleged that on 10.08.1991 the complainant's sister who was married to the accused-petitioner, was found dead hanging to the ceiling fan in her matrimonial house in suspicious circumstances and it seems that she has been killed. On the basis of the said report, the police registered a case under Section 306 IPC and started investigation. It is further submitted that during investigation the accused-petitioner was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 22.02.1992. Thereafter on 07.12.1992 a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused-petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 306 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who committed the case to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, from where it was transferred to the Court of Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) & Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur for trial. On 08.05.2007, the trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of the respective parties framed charge for the offence under Section 306 IPC against the accused-petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the trial Court dated 08.05.2007, the accused-petitioner preferred a revision petition before this Court which was registered as S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 470/2007 and the same came to be decided by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2009, whereby the impugned charge order dated 08.05.2007 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the same afresh to frame suitable charge against the accused-petitioner. The Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties, framed charge against the accused-petitioner u/Sec. 304B IPC vide its order impugned dated 10.12.2009. The said impugned order dated 10.12.2009 has been challenged by the petitioner by way of present revision petition on the ground that the trial Court failed to consider this aspect of the matter that in the instant case there is substantial delay in lodging the FIR as Smt. Bharti Singh died on 10.08.1991 whereas the FIR was registered on 19.08.1991. Therefore, lodging of FIR after such a delay itself makes the case suspicious and that too with out any details and as such, no case under Section 304B IPC can be made out against the accused-petitioner.
(3.) THE impugned order has further been challenged on the ground that the trial Court totally failed to consider the ingredients of the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the deceased as in the whole statement including the statements of neighbors to the house of the accused- petitioner and deceased, friends and relatives, not a single witness stated that the accused-petitioner committed any cruelty with the deceased in connection with demand of dowry, which makes it amply clear that when the basic ingredient of Section 304B IPC is missing in the present case that is to say that "cruelty in connection to demand of dowry" is missing, no case can be said to be made out against the accused-petitioner under Section 304B IPC. It is averred that the trial Court failed to consider the story of the prosecution also because as per the statement of witness Suman who herself stated that she was best friend of the deceased and there was a long period of courtship between the deceased and the accused-petitioner and thereafter both of them owing to love between them entered into nuptial wedlock against the wishes of the family of the deceased, therefore, it is suffice to say that it was a case of love marriage where no question of dowry arose between the parties. The said witness also stated that whenever she met with the deceased she always praised the accused petitioner and on the fatal date also she was very happy with her husband when the witness met with the deceased till 5.00 p.m. in the evening. On the contrary, she was blaming her brothers and parental side for not behaving properly with her and as such, the basic ingredient of Section 304B IPC that is to say that soon before the death, the deceased ought to have been subjected to cruelty in order to coerce her for unlawful demand of dowry, is missing. On the contrary, there is positive evidence against the complainants itself for their bad mental status which the trial Court totally failed to consider. It is also submitted that the trial Court further failed to consider that even in the complainants statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has been categorically stated that after her marriage there was no connection between the deceased and the complainants, rather they had never talked her before death. In these circumstances, the finding arrived at by the trial Court that the accused-petitioner asked for money from the deceased's parental house through deceased, is totally baseless and perverse to the record of the case and as such, prima- facie no case is made out against the petitioner for the offence under Section 304B IPC. ;