State v. Sonu and others), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:143508 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4023 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Revisionist :- Smt. Guddi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard Mr. Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gufran Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the revisionists and Mr. Omkar Nath, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Ms. Pratiksha Rai, learned Brief Holder for the State. 2. The instant Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the revisionists, namely, Smt. Guddi and Smt. Surendi, against the impugned order dated 15.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.4, Meerut in Session Trial No. 537 of 2019 (State Vs. Sonu and others), under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Mundali, district Meerut, whereby the trial court in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has summoned the revisionists as additional accused to face trial in the above case. 3. The emanation of facts giving rise to the present Criminal Revision are that complainant-Sonu who is brother of deceased-Preeti got the F.I.R. lodged on 07.04.2019 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against Sonu (husband), Monu (brother-in-law), Sheela Devi (mother-in-law), Richhpal (father-in-law), Guddi (sister-in-law/revisionist No.1) and Surendi (sister-in-law/revisionist No.2) of the deceased with the allegations inter alia that marriage of his two sisters, namely, Preeti (deceased) and Parul was solemnized on 29.04.2017 with Sonu and Monu who are also siblings with Hindu rites and custom. After the marriage, their in-laws named above started harassing them for bringing less dowry. They started torturing them mentally and physically and demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash and a Swift Car as an additional dowry. His sisters told him about their harassment. After knowing about the said fact, he brought his sisters back to home. A few days later, the people from the side of father-in-law of the deceased and the people of his community got her in-laws to sign a compromise that they will not make any demands now. About one and a half months ago, he sent his sister Preeti to her in-laws' house and about ten days ago he sent Parul to her matrimonial home in Derio Rachoti. On 07.04.2019, his younger sister-Parul informed him that since morning Preeti's husband Sonu and her husband Monu, mother-in-law (Sheela), father-in law (Richhpal), sisters-in-law Guddi and Surendi started abusing Preeti and harassing her mentally and physically. When they protested against this, accused persons caught hold of Parul and her sister Preeti and killed Preeti by putting a noose around Preeti's neck. They wanted to kill her sister-Parul also, but she broke free from those people, came out of her house and raised alarm. Seeing the villagers coming, the accused persons ran away. On hearing the said information, he along with his uncle and some people from the village came to village Derio, the dead body of her sister Preeti was lying in the verandah. She had been murdered by the said people. 4. The investigating officer, after investigation submitted the charge sheet only against four accused persons, namely, Sonu alias Sohanvir, Monu alias Mohan, Smt. Sheela and Richhpal. No charge sheet was submitted against the revisionists and they were exonerated during investigation, because in the opinion of the investigating officer, their complicity in the alleged crime was found false. 5. During trial, statement of the complainant who is brother of the deceased and Parul (sister of the deceased) were recorded on 30.08.2022 and 17.12.2022 as PW-1 and PW-2. The relevant part of statement (examination-in-chief) of PW-2 Parul, who is eye-witness of the incident, is extracted herein below:- "ममेररी व ममेररी बहन परीतति ककी शशादरी एक हरी घर ममे तदनशानांक 29.4.2017 कको मकोननू और सकोननू कमे सशाथ एक हरी घर मम हहई थरी दकोनको सगमे भशाई हह। ममेररी शशादरी मम दशान दहमेज व नकद ममेरमे भशाई नमे सब ककछ तदयशा थशा जजससमे ममेरमे सशास, ससकर व पतति, नन्द (सकरमेन्दरी व गकडरी) ममेरशा पतति मकोननू व बहन कशा पतति सकोननू खकश नहहीं थमे। हम दकोननों बहननों कमे सशाथ आयमे तदन यमे लकोग गशालरी गललौच व मशानजसक रूप समे पतिशातड़िति करतिमे थमे और दको लशाख ककैश व ससवफट कशार ककी मशानांग करतिमे थमे यमे बशाति मकैनमे अपनमे बड़िमे भशाई समे बतिशायरी थरी तिको व हममे अपनमे घर आकर लमे गयमे और उसकमे बशाद ससकरशाल वशालमे तबरशादररी कमे लकोगनों कमे वहशानां पर आकर रशाजरीनशामशा करशायशा और हम दकोनको बहननों कको ससकरशाल भमेज तदयशा तदनशानांक 7.4.2020 कको इन सभरी घर वशालनों नमे तमलकर हम दकोनको बहननों कमे सशाथ मशारपरीट शकरू कर दरी। हमनमे तवरकोध तकयशा तिको उन्हनोंनमे ममेररी बहन परीतति कको पकड़ि जलयशा और चशारपशाई पर जलटशाकर सकोननू, मकोननू नमे सकरमेन्दरी, गकडरी, शरीलशा, ररछपशाल नमे गलमे मम फनांदशा डशालकर और लकोगनों नमे हशाथ पकैर पकडमेडे़। उन लकोगनों नमे उसकको मशार तदयशा उसकमे बशाद मकैनमे शकोर मचशायशा और मह घर समे बशाहर ककी तिरफ भशाग गयरी बशाहर जशाकर शकोर मचशायशा तिको मकोहलमे वशालमे इकठशा हको गयमे मकैनमे मकोहलमे वशालनों कमे फकोन समे हरी अपनमे भशाई कको फकोन तकयशा तक इन लकोगनों नमे तमलकर ममेररी बहन कको मशार तदयशा हकै। यमे लकोग मकोहलमे वशालनों कको दमेखकर भशाग गयमे। तफर ममेरमे घर समे ममेरमे भशाई, चशाचशा, तिशाऊ व अन्य लकोग आयमे तिको ममेररी बहन परीतति ककी लशाश बरशामदमे ममे पड़िरी थरी आज हशाजजर अदशालति मकसलजम सकोननू, मकोननू, ररछपशाल, हशाजजर हकै शरीलशा ककी हशाजजररी मशाफकी आयरी हकै इन्हरी लकोगको नमे तमलकर ममेररी बहन कको दहमेज ककी मशानांग पनूररी न हकोनमे कमे कशारण हत्यशा कर दरी।" 6. Thereafter, on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the informant/complainant, the revisionists have been summoned vide impugned order. 7. The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionists is that Preeti (deceased) and Parul (PW-2) both are real sisters and married to Sonu and Monu who are also siblings. Due to some reasons, Preeti has committed suicide and thereafter, the revisionists and their family members have been falsely implicated in this case. Much emphasis has been given by contending that it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was strangled to death whereas, said story of the prosecution is not corroborated from the postmortem report of the deceased, which indicates that she died as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Hence, the statement of PW-2 is not liable to be believed. The revisionists were married in the year 1999 and 2014 respectively, much prior to marriage of the deceased-Preeti and PW-2 Parul. Revisionists were living with their husbands and children in their matrimonial home. It is also submitted that the revisionists were not present on the day of the alleged incident in the matrimonial home of the deceased. Lastly it is submitted that since in this case complicity of the revisionists was found false during investigation and no charge sheet was submitted against them, therefore, considering the statement of PW-2 also, no case for summoning the revisionists in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C is made out. No other point has been pressed. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the said submission by contending that the evidence which has come on record during trial in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 is more than prima facie case to frame charge against them, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 9. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that Parul is younger sister of the deceased. She was married with brother-in-law (दमेवर) of the deceased. She is also the eye-witness of the incident and it is the specific case of the prosecution since beginning that Preeti (deceased) was strangled by the accused persons. On perusal of statement of PW-2, I find that she has made specific allegations attributing specific role against the revisionists in strangulation of the deceased. The manner of strangulation has also been stated by PW-2 giving vivid description of the incident. PW-2 has also stated that on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, her sister was strangulated by the accused persons including the revisionists. 10. The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 is the celebrated judgment on the issue involved in this case, which laid down the criteria for summoning a person as an additional accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. holding that where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the trial court, then such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. It has also been held that it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. The said view has further been followed in catena of judgments by the Apex Court. 11. In the light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra), I find that allegations levelled by the PW-2 who is eye-witness of the incident during trial if go unrebutted, there is possibility of conviction of the accused. The evidence which has been brought on record comes under the purview of more than prima facie. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The presumption, observations and findings recorded by the trial court are not liable to be interfered with. 12. The Criminal Revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the complainant (opposite party No. 2) as well as to the concerned court below within three days for information. Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Kashifa