Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 564 (JHR)

Binay Mukherjee v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-05-02

LAKSHMAN URAON

body2003
JUDGMENT Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision against the order dated 6.10.2001, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, in sessions Trial No. 43 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed by these petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging them, has been rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution is based on the written information, given by the informant Pradeep Kumar Chatterjee, alleging therein, that his daughter Pampa Mukherjee was married with Partho Mukherjee (not petitioner) on 28th February, 1997. Soon after the marriage, these petitioners and Partho Mukherjee, husband of Pumpa Mukherjee, started torturing her for dowry. The informant filed a complaint against these petitioners and Partho Mukherjee on 13.8.1998. On 22.11.2000 he received telephonic message from L.N. Studio that his daughter had sustained burn injury at about 7.00 p.m. and was taken to General Hospital, Bokaro. She had sustained 100% burn injury on her person. The informant alleged that all the accused persons, including these petitioners tried to kill Pampa Mukherjee by sprinkling Kerosene oil and setting her on fire who died in course of treatment in the Hospital on 25.11.2000 at 2.50 p.m. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against these petitioner and Partho Mukherjee under Sections 304B/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge considered the case diary and the petition, filed under Section 227, Cr PC by the accused persons and having found sufficient materials available against them to frame charges under Sections 498A and 304B/34, IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, relying upon a case, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2018 , did not find any merit in the petition, filed by the accused persons under Section 227, Cr PC and rejected the same. 3. Assailing the order, rejecting the petition, filed under Section 227, Cr PC for discharge of these petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that information was given immediately to Chandrapura Police who reached D.V.C. Hospital and Mr. S.N. Paswan, A.S.I of Chandrapura Police Station, recorded the statement of Pampa Mukherjee in which she stated that during course of burning stove, fire caught her clothes and she was inflamed, sustaining burn injuries on all over her body. Her statement has been reproduced in the case diary vide paragraph No. 72. S.N. Paswan, A.S.I of Chandrapura Police Station, recorded the statement of Pampa Mukherjee in which she stated that during course of burning stove, fire caught her clothes and she was inflamed, sustaining burn injuries on all over her body. Her statement has been reproduced in the case diary vide paragraph No. 72. The informant was also informed about the incident telephonically at about 11.00 p.m. The husband of the deceased when tried to save her and tried to extinguish the fire, also sustained burn injury on his hands, which was found by the doctor, who treated him. There is only suspicion against the petitioner without any specific evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the I.O. has also recorded the statement of Dr. A.K. Srivastava, as mentioned in the case diary vide paragraph No. 69, wherein, he has stated that on enquiry Pampa Mukherjee stated that during lightening the stove, fire caught her clothes, as a result of which she sustained burn injury. The doctor also disclosed that Partho Mukherjee, husband of Pampa Mukherjee, when tried to extinguish the fire, also sustained burn injury, who is being treated by him (Dr. A.K. Srivastava). It was lastly submitted that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, failed to consider all these statements, recorded by the I.O. In course of investigation and erroneously rejected the petition, filed by the petitioners under Section 227, Cr PC. 4. Opposite party No. 2. Pradeep Kumar Chatterjee, informant in this case, inspite of service of notice, served upon him, did not appear. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that within three years of marriage, Pampa Mukherjee was burnt to death in her matrimonial house. As per the report of the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, she sustained 100% burn injury, became unconscious and died on 25.11.2000 at 2.30 p.m. She was not in a position to narrate anything which is clear from bare perusal of the case diary vide paragraph No. 7. 5. In the case diary, there are two set of evidence, recorded by the I.O. The witnesses of the matrimonial house of Pampa Mukherjee have stated that she sustained burn injury while lightening the stove. The doctor has also found 100% burn injury, who claims to have recorded the statement of Pampa Mukherjee. 5. In the case diary, there are two set of evidence, recorded by the I.O. The witnesses of the matrimonial house of Pampa Mukherjee have stated that she sustained burn injury while lightening the stove. The doctor has also found 100% burn injury, who claims to have recorded the statement of Pampa Mukherjee. On the other hand, the informant and other members of his family have stated that soon after the marriage, only for demand of dowry, Pampa Mukherjee was being tortured and harassed in various ways. She had written a number of letters to the informant, her father, narrating the torture and harassment, made by the petitioners to her. When considered these views, the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as Gurucharan Kumar and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 698 , is of no help to these petitioners. So also the other authorities, relied upon on behalf of the petitioners, as Chandra Rai and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, reported in 1998 (1) PLJR 295 and Salamat Ali v. The State of Bihar, 1996(1) PLJR 72 (SC), are also of no help to these petitioners, as the present case is in respect to discharging them under Section 227, Cr PC and not for acquitting them after conviction on full trial. 6. Even there is circumstantial evidence and strong suspicion, a prima facie case is made out to proceed with the trial. Framing of charge does not mean that the trial will end in conviction or acquittal rather the conviction or acquittal will be based only after testing the prosecution witnesses, to be examined in course of trial. At this stage I find that there is no dispute regarding the death of Pampa Mukherjee in her matrimonial house within three years of her marriage. The informant has alleged regarding demand of dowry by her in-laws. There are letters written by her to her father (the informant), regarding the torture and harassment made to her by her in-laws. They had also tried to declare her insane so that they may get decree of divorce easily. The learned Court below has considered all these facts and found materials to frame charges against these petitioners and has rightly rejected the petition, filed under Section 227, Cr PC. They had also tried to declare her insane so that they may get decree of divorce easily. The learned Court below has considered all these facts and found materials to frame charges against these petitioners and has rightly rejected the petition, filed under Section 227, Cr PC. I also do not find any merit in this revision application, which fails and is, hereby, dismissed. Let the lower Court records along with the case diary be returned to the learned Court below forthwith so that trial of the case should proceed, as one of the accused, namely, Partho Mukherjee, husband of the deceased, is in custody. The learned Court below is also directed to take up the hearing of the case on day-to-day basis.