Diwan Singh and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

IA No. 120 of 2010 (Urgency Application)

Heard.

Allowed.

Criminal Revision No. 03 of 2010

Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate present for the applicant/revisionists.

Mr. Prabhakar Joshi Brief Holder present for the State.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Admit the revision.

Issue notice to Respondent No. 2-Raghuveer Singh Rawat returnable within four weeks. 38 Also heard on the prayer for stay.

Brief facts emerges out from the case are that the marriage of Rekha (now deceased) was solemnized with Balbir Singh Negi according to Hindu rites and rituals in the month of February, 2006. But suddenly after three years of marriage Smt. Rekha disappeared from her in-laws house from the evening of 26.03.2009. It is alleged that in the night of 27.03.2009 Smt. Rekha was found hanged with a tree. Thereafter, father of the deceased-Rekha lodged F.I.R. on 27.03.2009 but there was no allegation against the revisionists. On 28.03.2009 at 19:30 p.m. Raghuveer Singh Rawat, father of the deceased lodged second F.I.R. On the basis of the second F.I.R. a Case Crime No. 1004/2009 u/s 304B I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Deoprayag, District Tehri Garhwal. After the investigation Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet. On 22.12.2009 the learned Sessions Judge Tehri Garhwal took cognizance of the case and prima-facie found offence punishable Under Sections 498A I.P.C. 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and 304B I.P.C. On the same day the learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal also framed alternative charge Under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. Being aggrieved by the alternative charge present revision has been preferred before this Court. Learned Counsel for the revisionists submitted that Smt. Rekha has committed suicide by hanging and the revisionists are not responsible for her death. He further submitted that 39 there was no demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment on the part of the revisionists. He further submitted that the charge framed by the Court must be based on the evidence in the case. He further submitted that the ingredients of Section 302 & 304B are altogether different and framing of these charges together is not permissible. In support of his arguments he relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2001, Raj Kishore Goel v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. LIII (2005) ACC 190.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, prima-facie, this Court is satisfied with the arguments of learned Counsel for the revisionists.

In view of the above, it is directed till the next date of listing further proceedings in State v. Diwan Singh and Ors. Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2009 shall remain stayed.