Sonu v. State of Haryana

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER ...Respondents Present: Mr. Chanakya Pandit, Advocate, for the revision-petitioners, in both the revision-petitions. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Criminal Revision No. 825 of 2009 Criminal Revision No. 851 of 2009 SHAM SUNDER, J. 2 This order shall dispose of Criminal Revision No. 825 of 2009, filed by Sonu, and, Criminal Revision No. 851 of 2009, filed by Jarnailo, revision-petitioners, against the order dated 12.03.09, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, at Jagadhri, vide which, the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was allowed, and, Jarnailo, married sister-in-law of the deceased, and, Sonu, unmarried brother-in-law of the deceased, were summoned, as additional accused.

2. Kela Devi daughter of Barkha Ram, was married to Tony son of Jagta Ram, on 02.03.06. She died, on 13.08.06, otherwise than, under natural circumstances, by consumption of poisonous substance, in the house of her in-laws. It was stated by Barkha Ram, in his statement, that sufficient dowry, at the time of her marriage, was given, but, the members of the in-laws family of the deceased, were not happy. They used to torture her, in connection with the demand of dowry continuously, resulting into commission of suicide by her. Accordingly, FIR, under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC, was registered.

3. Jarnailo Devi, married sister-in-law and Sonu, unmarried brother-in-law of the deceased, were not challaned. An application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was filed, after the statement of Barkha Ram, was recorded, and, they were summoned, as additional accused, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, Criminal Revision No. 825 of 2009 Criminal Revision No. 851 of 2009 3 at Jagadhri, vide order dated 02.06.08.

4. Two revision-petitions, were filed, against that order, which were accepted, vide order dated 05.02.09, by this Court, and, the case, was remanded back, for deciding the matter afresh, in accordance with law.

5. After the case was received by remand, the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide order dated 12.03.09, again summoned the said accused, for facing the trial, for the aforesaid offence.

6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

7. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, while passing the order dated 12.03.09, the Court below, did not state even a single word, in the same (order), as to what was the evidence, given by Barkha Ram, and, how the participation of the revision- petitioners, in the alleged commission of crime, was prima-facie established. He further submitted that, even no reasons, were recorded, by the trial Court, while summoning the revision- petitioners, as accused. He further submitted that, Jarnailo Devi, married sister-in-law, had been residing separately, from the deceased and her husband. He further submitted that, Sonu, petitioner, unmarried brother-in-law of the deceased, had no occasion, to treat the deceased with cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry. He further submitted that, since the order dated Criminal Revision No. 825 of 2009 Criminal Revision No. 851 of 2009 4

12.03.09, was passed without application of mind and is bereft of reasons, the same, is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, the order, was passed, by the Court below, after taking into consideration, the evidence of Barkha Ram. He further submitted that, the Court below, was right, in coming to the conclusion that, from the evidence, it appeared, that both the petitioners, committed the offence. He further submitted that, it, therefore, could not be said, that the order, was passed, without application of mind, and, is bereft of reasons. He further submitted that, the order, is not liable to be set aside.

9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petitions, are liable to be accepted, and, the case, deserves to be remanded back, for fresh decision of the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., by the trial Court, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. The operative portion of the order dated 12.03.09, passed by the Court below, reads as under:- “This Court is, therefore, of the view that evidence to that extent has come against Jarnailo Devi and Sonu so that they may be added as accused and it definitely appears from the evidence so far on record that they have committed the offence for which they are sought to be summoned. It can also be in a way said that this Court is satisfied that there is such evidence against the sad two persons as may call for summoning them as additional accused because the Criminal Revision No. 825 of 2009 Criminal Revision No. 851 of 2009 5 complainant named them in his original complaint and also in the Court and he is very sure that the said persons were also the culprits.”

10. There is nothing, in the order, as to the broad features of the evidence given by Barkha Ram. The Court below, did not advert to the evidence of Barkha Ram. There is nothing, in the order, that Barkha Ram stated in his statement that the petitioners treated the deceased with cruelty, soon before her death. The Court below, only recorded that, it was of the view, that evidence, to that extent, had come, against Jarnailo Devi and Sonu, so that they would be added, as accused. Before recording satisfaction, the Court below, was required, to peruse the record, as also the evidence of Barkha Ram, and, specifically state, in the order, as to the mode and manner, in which, he stated that, both the petitioners, participated in the commission of crime. The mere use of words that “evidence to the extent, had come against Jarnailo Devi and Sonu”, in my considered opinion, did not amount to application of mind, to the facts and circumstances of the case as also the evidence on record. It is settled principle of law, that every judicial order, should be speaking one. In other words, it must contain reasons, so that the Appellate or the Revisional Court, may be able to determine, as to what weighed with the trial Court, to pass the same. In this view of the matter, without expressing any opinion, on the merits of the present controversy, the revision-petitions, are liable to be accepted, and, the case, deserves to be remanded back, to the trial Court, for fresh decision of the Criminal Revision No. 825 of 2009 Criminal Revision No. 851 of 2009 6 application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

11. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Revision No. 825 of 2009, and, Criminal Revision No. 851 of 2009, are accepted. The matter, is remanded back, to the trial Court, with a direction, to decide the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., afresh, after stating, in the order, the nature and particulars of the evidence given by Barkha Ram, and, recording reasons for arriving at a particular conclusion.

12. The respondents, are directed, to appear, in the trial Court, on 23.08.2010, at 10.00 AM, for further proceedings.

13. The Registry, is directed, to send the trial Court record alongwith the copies of the order immediately, so as to reach there, before the date fixed.

03.08.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE