Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 68 (JHR)

Shakilur Rahman v. State

2001-01-31

D.N.PRASAD

body2001
JUDGMENT D.N. Prasad, J. 1. This criminal revision has arisen out of an order dated 15.4.1996 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Cr. Revision No. 58 of 1995 by which he has set aside the order dated 1.9.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj in G.R. No. 660 of 1988 whereby the learned Magistrate had refused to amend the charges already framed against the petitioners. 2. Short case of the prosecution as alleged in the FIR is that the daughter of the informant Sahnaz Begaum was married in the year 1985 with Shakilur Rahman Khan. After sometime, she was being ill-treated by her in-laws. Inspite of the fact that the informant had given sufficient dowry being clothes and ornaments worth Rs. 50,000/-. The husband of his daughter was demanding one Rajdoot Motor Cycle, which could not be given. On 22.4.1988 at about 7 p.m. the husband of his daughter took her away from his place. Inspite of the fact that he did not want to send her and the husband was also threatening for divorce. Due to non- fulfilment of the demand, his daughter was assaulted. On 30.4.1988 at about 10.30 p.m. some persons came to his house and told him that his daughter is missing. The informant along with others rushed to the village of her sasural and found the dead body of his daughter lying in the well. Accordingly the first information report was lodged against the accused persons/petitioners for the offence under Sections 302/201 /34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge- sheet under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken and thereafter charge was framed under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. No any objection was raised from the side of the opposite party No. 2 that this case comes under the purview of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. All the witnesses have been examined in the Court below and the case was fixed, for judgment after hearing argument. But a petition was filed from the side of the opposite party No. 2 stating therein that the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is made out in this case and as such Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code may be added. But a petition was filed from the side of the opposite party No. 2 stating therein that the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is made out in this case and as such Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code may be added. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer by order dated 1.9.1995 against which criminal revision was preferred. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision application by the order impugned and directed the Magistrate that the case may be committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. On being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners/accused persons preferred this revision application on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed error in passing the order impugned as this criminal case is pending since 1988 and the witnesses were also examined during trial but no any objection was raised at any point of time. It is also claimed that the police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code only as well as the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted at the very out set that the criminal case is pending since 1988 and the police also submitted charge-sheet after due investigation for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is further argued that no case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is made out and the opposite party could have early raised all the points at the time of framing of charge and after lapse of so many years, these points have been raised only with a view to harass the petitioners/accused persons. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly passed the order impugned as there is a positive evidence for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC, which will also be evident from the written report submitted by the informant-Exhibit 1, on the basis of which the first information report was lodged under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further argued that there was specific allegation about demand of Motor-cycle by the husband and in-laws and due to non-fulfilment of demand, deceased was subjected to torture and the death also occurred within seven years of the marriage and as such the ingredients for constituting for the offence under Section 304B has fully been established. It is further argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the revision application as the learned Magistrate failed to consider the evidence of PWs which have already been examined during trial and all the witnesses supported the prosecution case as propounded in the first information report. 6. On perusal, it is apparent that as many as 5 witnesses have been examined in the Court below but the learned Magistrate failed to consider the evidence of those witnesses in his order dated 1.9.1995. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also held in his order that there is a clear assertion in the first information report about committing of crime under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code which has been supported by the witnesses. The learned Magistrate could have easily passed the order after considering the evidence of PWs adduced during trial but the learned Magistrate ignored to consider the evidence collected during trial. The allegation as made out in the first information report clearly indicates about constituting the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The witnesses have also been examined and they have supported the same. 7. Thus, I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly passed the order impugned directing for commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions. In the result, I do not find any merit in this revision application which is accordingly dismissed. The case is of the year 1988 and as such the Magistrate concerned is directed to commit the case to the Court of Sessions without further delay. However, the petitioners may raise all those points before the Sessions Judge at the appropriate stage of the case. 8. Revision dismissed.