GOYAL, J. - (1.) BOTH the petitions arise out of the same case, hence both are decided vide common order
(2.) THE relevant facts in brief are that the complainant respondent No. 2 Phool Singh, father of deceased Smt. Renuka, submitted a written report at Police Station, Mansarovar, Jaipur on 17. 6. 99, with the averments that his daughter Renuka was married to Yogesh on 10. 2. 1998. He spent about a sum of 5. 50 lacs including cash amount of Rs. 2. 11 lacs for Maruti Car. After some time of the marriage, Yogesh and his parents started mental and physical harassment to his daughter for further demands of dowry. On making inquiry from Jogendra Singh, father-in-law of Renuka, he raised a demand of Rs. 2 lacs and assured that on making the payment of this amount, she would not be harassed by any one. A sum of Rs. one lac, thereafter was given to Jogendra Singh and he agreed to pay one lac after some time but all the three accused persons continued to harass and torture his daughter. It is also averred that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was also given to Yogesh at Jaipur on 6. 6. 99 but his daughter was beaten on 15. 6. 99 and she died at about 2. 30 p. m. on 16. 6. 99. F. I. R. No. 111/99, was registered for offenses under Sections 498a and 304b IPC. During pendency of investigation, one complaint was also field by Phool Singh against all three accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur, on 8. 3. 2000, with similar allegations giving more details of articles of dowry given at the time of marriage, subsequent demands and incidents of cruelty committed from time to time. The Police after conclusion of investigation submitted final report (negative) on 15. 6. 01 giving detailed reasons with the final conclusion that the F. I. R. was lodged on account of misunderstanding. Learned Judicial Magistrate conducted inquiry and recorded the statements of seven witnesses including the complainant and having considered the final report and evidence recorded by hi, took cognizance for offences under Sections 498a and 304b IPC on 18. 9. 01 against all the three accused persons. Thereafter some applications were moved on behalf of the accused persons in the court of learned Magistrate and some were dismissed vide order dated 6. 11. 01. Thereafter the accused persons filled Cr. Revision challenging the order of cognizance dated 18. 9. 01 and the order dated 6. 11. 01. This Cr. Revision Petition No. 16/2002, was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide order dated 27. 2. 02. Now the accused petitioner Jogendra Singh is facing trial while remaining two accused have not appeared before the Court so far. The Sessions Case No. 45/2002, came up for trial in the court of learned Special Judge, (Women atrocities and Dowry Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur, who having heard learned counsel for the parties ordered to frame charges under Sections 498a and 304b IPC vide order dated 19. 8. 02, against the present accused petition. This order has been challenged by filing revision petition No. 908/02. Thereafter an application was moved on behalf of the present accused on 24. 9. 02 that the Court at Jaipur had no territorial jurisdiction rather the competent Court at Narnaul has got territorial jurisdiction, therefore, this case may be either returned to the prosecution or it may be sent to Sessions court at Narnaul. Learned Special Judge having heard learned Special P. P. and learned Senior counsel Shri Bajwa for the accused dismissed this application vide order dated 8. 10. 02, hence Misc. Petition No. 1232/2002.
(3.) FIRST, Cr. Revision Petition is taken up. Before adverting to the rival submission, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of law. " 498-A IPC, Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of woman, subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 304b IPC Dowry death (1) where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation-For the purposes of this sub-section "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961 ). (1) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.) 113b Indian Evidence Act: Presumption as to dowry death. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation - For the purposes of this Section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304b of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)]". Learned senior counsel for the accused contended that there was absolutely no evidence of offence under Section 304b-IPC against the present accused as admittedly Smt. Renuka died at Jaipur, where she was residing with her husband Yogesh, and the present accused with his wife was residing at Narnaul : t constitute the offence of dowry death, it is essential to show that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death; that there was no such evidence to show that the present accused ever came to Jaipur, therefore, the Provisions of Sections 34, 149 and 120b IPC are not applicable for this offence and as such no presumption of dowry death can arise as provided in Section 113b of the Indian Evidence Act: that one important fact is submission of final report : that deceased was suffering from acute depression and there was oral as well as documentary evidence to prove this fact; that according to the statements of Smt. Uma, a friend of deceased and Vikas and Smt. Sunita (both landlords of the deceased and her husband), recorded under Sections 161 Cr. P. C. deceased was residing with her husband peacefully and there were cordial relations between both of them which is proved from a number of letters written by the deceased to her husband. Thus according to learned Senior counsel, there was no ground to proceed against the present accused for an offence under Section 304b IPC. Reliance is placed upon some of the judgments. In Kan Raj vs. State of Punjab and others (1), it was held that fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relatives can not, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In Satvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (2), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that for the offence under Section 304b IPC infliction of cruelty or harassment `soon before death' should be shown. There should be perceptible nexus between her death and harassment of cruelty inflicted on her. In Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others (3), it was held that at the stage of framing the charge the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. Per contra learned counsel for the complainant and learned P. P. supported the impugned order of framing the charges and contended that there is ample evidence to show cruelty for dowry; that Smt. Renuka died within a period of about one year and four months after the marriage; that she died in abnormal circumstances; that there is evidence of cruelty soon before her death; that cruelty was being committed continuously and thus death of Smt. Renuka clearly falls within the definition of Dowry death. It was also submitted by learned counsel Shri Surana that write petition was field against the Investigating officer making allegations against him, hence he submitted final report. According to Mr. Surana, thus there was prima facie evidence to connect the present accused with both the Sections and reasons are not required in order to frame the charges. Reliance is placed upon Kanti Bhandra Shah and another vs. State of W. B. (4), where in it was haled that no reasons are required to be recorded when charges are tube framed. In Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (5), it was held by Hon. Apex Court in case of Dowry death that occurrence having taken place in in-law's house, onus lies on the inmates of the house to explain circumstances leading to her death. In Kan Raj's case (supra), relied upon by Mr. Surana, it was held that mere lapse of time by itself would not provide the accused that cruelty or harassment was not `soon before her death' as particulars or live links must be shown to exist between the course of conduct relating to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand and consequential death. In State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh (6), it was held that charges should be framed when there is evidence of strong suspicion against the accused. ;