Santosh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The revision petition has been filed by Santosh-complainant, mother of the deceased Ritu against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby the learned trial Court has declined to summon Jaivir and Reenu (respondents No.2 and 3) as additional accused in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) for having committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short). Santosh-complainant lodged FIR in the case alleging that her daughter Ritu (deceased) was married with Jasbir Singh son of Ved Singh on 12.3.2005. The complainant had given dowry beyond her capacity to her daughter. On the birth of her son, the complainant gave more dowry but the family of the husband of Ritu (daughter of the complainant-Santosh) raised demand for a motorcycle and a gold chain. Ritu had informed the complainant-Santosh that her mother-in-law Nirmala, sister-in-law (Nanad) Reenu (respondent No.3), husband-Jasbir, husband's younger brother Cr. Revision No.3158 of 2010 [2] (Devar)-Jaivir (respondent No.2) and father-in-law Ved Singh were harassing her for bringing less dowry. Thereafter, on several occasions Panchayats were convened in the house and on the asking of the Panchayats the complainant sent her daughter Ritu to her matrimonial home about 10 days earlier to the occurrence. On 16.7.2009 at about 4.00 p.m., the complainant received a telephone call from Village Bandh that her daughter Ritu had died by hanging from the neck in a room situated on the first floor. The complainant along with her husband Bhullan Singh, her husband's younger brother (Devar) Ramphal reached the place of the incident and saw that her daughter was hanging and she was dead. It is alleged that on account of bringing inadequate dowry and non-fulfillment of demands raised by the husband and relatives of the husband of Ritu i.e. mother-in- law Nirmala, sister-in-law (Nanad) Reenu (respondent No.3), husband- Jasbir, husband's younger brother (Devar) Jaivir (respondent No.2) and father-in-law Ved Singh had murdered Ritu-the daughter of the complainant and had hanged her for bringing inadequate dowry. During investigation, Jaivir and Reenu (respondents No.2 and 3) were found innocent and they were not sent-up for trial and the charge-report (challan) was filed against Jasbir husband, Nirmala mother-in-law and Ved Singh father-in-law respectively of Ritu. The statement (Annexure-P.3) of Santosh-complainant was recorded during trial as PW-6 and she named Jaivir and Reenu (respondents No.2 and 3) as well who had committed the offence. Accordingly, an application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Jaivir and Reenu (respondents No.2 and 3) as additional accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide impugned Cr. Revision No.3158 of 2010 [3] order dated 25.10.2010 has dismissed the said application. Aggrieved against the same the complainant Santosh has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has named respondents No.2 and 3 also in the commission of the offence which resulted in the death of Ritu. It is submitted that in the charge-report (challan) (Annexure-P.2) filed by the Police no reason has been recorded for placing Jaivir and Reenu (respondents No.2 and 3) in column No.2 of the charge-report. A reference is also made to the deposition (Annexure-P.3) of Santosh who appeared as PW-6 in which it is stated that she has clearly named Jaivir and Reenu (respondents No.2 and 3) as well for having committed the offence which resulted in death of Ritu. It is submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not summoned Jaivir and Reenu (respondents No.2 and 3) only because it was held that they were not to be beneficiaries of the motorcycle and gold chain. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and gone through the records of the case. In respect of summoning additional accused in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. it is to be kept in mind that mere suspicion or involvement of the persons who are sought to be summoned as additional accused is not enough. The evidence on record should show a reasonable prospect of the involvement of the person or persons who are sought to be summoned as additional accused. The Court is to have a reasonable satisfaction of two aspects. Firstly, that some person who is not arraigned as an accused in the case had committed an offence and secondly for such an offence that other person who is sought to be summoned could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. In the present case the death of Ritu daughter of the complainant-Santosh had occurred on Cr. Revision No.3158 of 2010 [4]

16.7.2009 and the same is said to be by hanging. In the case, the Police has charge-sheeted (challaned) the mother-in-law Nirmala, father-in-law Ved Singh and husband-Jasbir of the deceased Ritu and they are already facing trial. According to the complainant-petitioner, the demand that was raised was of motorcycle and a gold chain. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned order dated 25.10.2010 has found that the allegations regarding harassment of the deceased by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law were general in nature. Besides, there was no allegation that the sister-in-law (Nanad) Reenu (respondent No.3) and brother-in-law (Devar) Jaivir (respondent No.2) had raised any specific demand of dowry and had harassed the deceased Ritu for not satisfying their demand. As per the statement of the complainant- Santosh before the Police as well as her statement (Annexure-P.3) recorded before the Court as PW-6, it has been alleged that the husband, mother-in- law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased raised demand of motorcycle and gold chain. The allegations regarding demand of motorcycle and gold chain, it was observed, was vague and omnibus. There was no specific allegation that sister-in-law Reenu (respondent No.3) and brother-in-law (Devar) Jaivir (respondent No.2) raised demand of motorcycle or gold chain. Reenu (respondent No.3) is unmarried sister-in- law whereas Jaivir (respondent No.2) is brother-in-law of the deceased and they could not be the beneficiaries in respect of the demand of motorcycle or the gold chain. The reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat while declining to summon respondents No.2 and 3 as additional Cr. Revision No.3158 of 2010 [5] accused are sound. The reasoning as has been given indeed makes out a case that the material on record is not such which would show their involvement in the death of Ritu. The contention that no reason has been recorded in the charge- report (challan) (Annexure-P.2) filed by the Police, it may be noticed that it is recorded by the Inspector/SHO Police Station Israna on 26.9.2009 that he on 11.8.2009 on the basis of sufficient evidence arrested Ved Singh and Nirmala i.e. the parents-in-law of the deceased and produced them before the Court and recorded the statements of witnesses. The investigation of the case was also verified by Shri Wazir Singh, DSP, Samalakha. As per the investigation, Inspector/SHO Police Station Israna and on verification of DSP Wazir Singh, nothing was found against the sister-in-law (Nanad), namely, Reenu (respondent No.3) and brother-in-law (Devar), namely, Jaivir (respondent No.2) of Ritu. Therefore, they were not arrested in the case and were placed in column No.2. As such, it is after investigation by Inspector/SHO Police Station Israna and verification of DSP Smalakha that no material was found against respondents No.2 and 3 for arresting them or sending them for trial. From the material placed on record indeed it can be said that the facts and circumstances do not warrant the summoning of respondents No.2 and 3 as additional accused as apart from there being no material it cannot be disputed that they would not be the beneficiaries of the motorcycle or the gold chain for which a demand is said to have been raised. In the circumstances, no ground for interference with the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat is made out in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Cr. Revision No.3158 of 2010 [6] Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed or stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the evidence and material as produced before it independently and in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made herein. November 30, 2010. *hsp* (S.S. Saron) Judge