Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1804 (PAT)

Malti Devi v. State Of Bihar

2007-11-23

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
Judgment Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. The four petitioners who happen to be parents-in-law, sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother-in-law (Dewar) of the informant have filed this application for quashing of the order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 221 of 2006, arising out of Rahui (Bhagan Bigha) P.S. Case No. 190 of 2003 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for their discharge has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Rinku Devi gave her fardbeyan before the Officer Incharge of the said Police Station at about 10.30 P.M. on 22.12.2003 inter alia alleging that her marriage was solemnized with Shiv Shankar Prasad in June that year whereat a sum of Rs. 2,00,000.00 was given as dowry and the initial period after marriage in the marital home was full of bliss. However, about two months prior to the date of occurrence the petitioners started demanding a further lac of rupees and also started torturing her for the same which was objected to by the husband. It is alleged that on the previous day (22.12.2003) at around 2 P.M. the petitioners in an effort to kill her, wanted to administer poison which was aborted by the husband who saved her life by locking her in a room whereafter the accused persons forcibly administered poison to the husband. She claims to have seen her husband being administered poison through the window whereafter she managed to escape from the room and fled to her parental home where she learnt that her husband had been rushed to the clinic of Dr. K.P. Sinha at Mogalkuan. It is stated that she with her family members made attempts to locate her husband but without any success and even the doctor refused to divulge any information about him. It was claimed that the four petitioners had killed the husband by administering poison as he had opposed their demand for dowry. It appears that after due investigation the police submitted a final form but the learned Magistrate differed with the same and took cognizance under Ss. 302/328 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are quite innocent, have committed no offence and have been falsely implicated in the instant case due to enmity and land dispute. 302/328 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are quite innocent, have committed no offence and have been falsely implicated in the instant case due to enmity and land dispute. It was also sought to be submitted that the story as mooted in the fardbeyan was highly improbable as no prudent person could kill his own son/brother. The learned counsel further sought to point out that the several witnesses examined by the police have categorically stated that the relationship between the deceased and the informant was not cordial as a result whereof the husband had consumed poison. In this connection, the learned counsel with reference to paragraph-4 of the case diary sought to point out that it was apparent therefrom that as soon the husband was admitted in the clinic of the Doctor the informant left him and went to her parental home with another person on a scooter. He also sought to refer to paragraphs-26, 27, 43 to 45, 57 and 58 of the case diary where the witnesses have stated that it was due to the land dispute between the deceased and the informant that the deceased had consumed poison. It was also sought to be pointed out that many other witnesses had stated before the police that the informant had remained in her marital home for a period of one month only whereafter she had left the same as she was not willing to live with her husband and it was on this account that the police had submitted a final form. 4. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Presiding Judge has assigned reasons for his having differed with the final form submitted by the police and he has in this connection made a mention of Paragraphs-6, 30 and 31 of the case diary from which strong suspicion has been aroused against the petitioners of their having committed the offence. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to assail these paragraphs by stating that these witnesses were on inimical terms with the petitioners and they had good reasons to depose against the petitioners. 5. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in fact, is their defence which cannot be looked into at this stage and has to be looked into in course of evidence at the trial. 5. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in fact, is their defence which cannot be looked into at this stage and has to be looked into in course of evidence at the trial. It is by now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court as also this Court that strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt as at the conclusion of the trial and at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. In the case of State of Bihar V/s. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under: "Reading Ss. 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction." 7. The aforesaid judgment has stood the test of time for all these long years and I respectfully agree with the same. 8. In the instant case, the learned Presiding Judge has given cogent reasons for rejecting the prayer for discharge and I see no reason to differ therefrom. 9. The aforesaid judgment has stood the test of time for all these long years and I respectfully agree with the same. 8. In the instant case, the learned Presiding Judge has given cogent reasons for rejecting the prayer for discharge and I see no reason to differ therefrom. 9. In the result, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.