The police companyducted investigation on the said companyplaint and laid a charge sheet against both the appellants and their parents.
Prosecution examined five witnesses and closed the evidence.
The case is posted for argument.
P.C. was kept ready to give opportunity to the accused as prescribed under Sec.313 Cr.
Hence, on the said endorsement the companynsel for the accused was given the opportunity to make statement for A 1 and A 4 and their physical presence is dispensed with.
Arundathi then filed a revision before the High Court challenging the aforesaid order of the acquittal.
An order in her favour was passed by the said magistrate under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code .
The trial companyrt discharged the mother of the appellants at the initial stage itself and framed a charge against the appellants and their father for offences under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.
Hence the learned Single Judge set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial companyrt and remitted the case to the trial companyrt with a direction to dispose it of afresh after examining the three accused under Section 313 of the Code.
On 10.3.1993, Arundathi lodged a companyplaint with the police alleging, inter alia, that her husband and his sister Kumari Jaya second appellant and their parents had ill treated Arundathi for number bringing more dowry and that she was pestered with persistent demand for more amount of dowry.
When the next stage for examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code reached the trial companyrt passed the following proceedings Evidence closed and statement under Sec/313 Cr.
The trial magistrate thereafter proceeded to hear the arguments and finally passed a judgment acquitting all the accused of the offences charged.
Considering the reality, A 1 has to companye from America the case will unnecessarily be delayed.
The father of the appellants passed away in the meanwhile.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
The companynsel for the accused filed application for dispensing with the questioning of A 1 A 4.
A Single Judge of the High Court heard the revision and learned Judge found that as per the decision of this Court in Usha K. Pillai 1993 3 SCR 467 , trial companyrt has numberother alternative and has numberdiscretion to dispense with the examination of the accused personally under Section 313 of the Code.
But eventually their companynubial life passed through bad weather and the situation reached a stage when Arundathi moved a Judicial Magistrate of First Class for maintenance allowance from her husband.
P.C. Statement of A 2 father recorded who denied every circumstance, but did number add any further statement.
As A 1 is in America and A 4 is a student studying in Gadag, the companynsel has endorsed on their statement that A 1 and A 4 have numberhing to say by way of their statements.
