Keshav Ram vs State of Punjab and Another

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by complainant-Keshav Ram, father of Aarti, who is stated to have died in her matrimonial home on 14.5.2011. In the FIR, the petitioner/complainant had named husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of Aarti, besides respondent No. 2-Des Raj, maternal uncle of her husband.

The Investigating Agency found Des Raj, respondent No. 2, to be innocent and placed him in column No. 2 in the report, submitted u/s 173 Cr. P.C. The petitioner appeared before the trial Court as PW. 2 and in his deposition, he has stated the following two facts against Des Raj, respondent No. 2:-

A) That at about 9.30 A.M., the petitioner had received a telephonic call from Aarti, during telephonic conversation, his deceased daughter, disclosed that she was putting down the telephone as Des Raj, maternal uncle of her husband, has arrived and she would talk with complainant lateron.

B) That at about 12.30 noon, the petitioner had received a telephonic call from Des Raj, respondent No. 2, that his daughter was not feeling well and her condition was serious, therefore, he should reach at Jalandhar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the above two facts, it is apparent that Des Raj had also participated in the occurrence.

The trial Judge, vide impugned order dated 5.11.2011 (Annexure P4), held that the above two circumstances are not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that there are reasonable chances of conviction of respondent No. 2-Des Raj. For arriving at this reason, the trial Judge has relied upon Michael Machado and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another,

Considering the fact that respondent No. 2-Des Raj is maternal uncle of the husband and he is residing separately, it cannot be said that he had to gain anything from the demand of dowry. Furthermore, the Investigating Agency had found Des Raj as innocent. A view formulated by the trial Judge, in declining application u/s 319 Cr. P.C., is possible on the facts of the case. Hence, this Court will be hesitant to cause interference in the present petition, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed, in limine.