Noordin vs State of Haryana

R.P. Nagrath, J.—Instant revision has been filed against the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the trial Court vide which charge only u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) is framed and not u/s 304-B IPC.

Petitioner is the father of deceased who recorded the FIR with the police in respect of occurrence dated 22.06.2011. His two daughters, namely, Sabnam and Sakunat were married on 22.06.2011 and on the same night Sabnam is stated to have been killed on account of bringing insufficient dowry as demanded by the accused-persons. FIR was registered on 24.06.2011 after postmortem examination of the daughter of complainant. Though information to the police was given on 23.06.2011. The charge-sheet was presented on completion of investigation against respondent No. 2 only whereas rest of the accused mentioned in the FIR were found innocent and were kept in column No. 2 of the challan. The prosecuting agency presented the challan on completion of investigation u/s 302 IPC and on commitment of the case to Sessions Court, the trial Court passed the order on 18.11.2011 for framing of the charge against respondent No. 2 for offence u/s 302 IPC.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State counsel and counsel for respondent No. 2 and after going through the material on record, I find that impugned order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside.

The story mentioned in the FIR was specifically making allegation of demand of certain dowry articles. Statement of other daughter of the complainant, namely; Sakunat who is an eyewitness was also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on the same day. These facts were also reiterated by Sakunat in the witness-box when she appeared as a witness during the trial. The copy of her statement is attached in CRR No. 3674 of 2012 in which the petitioners are the co-accused who were summoned in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C.

It seems that learned trial Court ordered framing of the charge simply swayed by the fact that charge-sheet was presented u/s 302 IPC. The trial Court has not discussed the other allegations mentioned in the complaint about the demand of dowry as per the prosecution story for which statement of certain witnesses were also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. In fact the complainant should have moved the application to learned trial Court itself with a prayer for alteration of charge if the case is made like that.

In view of the aforesaid factors, impugned order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the trial Court is set aside with a direction to trial Court to pass a reasoned order afresh on the question of charge after hearing the parties and to proceed further in accordance with law.