Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 811 (ORI)

Kiranmayi Mishra v. State of Orissa

2007-10-12

PRADIP MOHANTY

body2007
JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : This revision is directed against the order dated 05.04.2006 passed by the Ad hoc Addl.Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. No.44/7 of 2006 framing charge against the petitioner under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 2. Brief fact of the case is that one Premalata Devi, lodged an FIR at Sector 7 P.S. Rourkela alleging therein that her daughter Sambedita Mishra was given in marriage to the son of the petitioner and at the time of marriage their demands had been fulfilled. But Sambedita was being tortured by her husband and mother-in-law for more dowry. On 26.06.2005 getting information about the illness of Sambedita, the informant and other family members proceeded to Rourkela and there they came to know that Sambedita is dead. Apprehending that the accused persons had murdered her, the FIR was lodged. Initially, U.D. Case No.7 of 2005 was registered but subsequently it was turned to a G.R. case. Police investigated into the matter and ultimately filed charge sheet against the petitioner and her son. After commitment of the case to the Court of session, the petitioner moved for discharge, but the trial Court considered and rejected the same and framed charges against the petitioner and her son for commis¬sion of the offences as already stated. 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the post-mortem report to the effect that the death was suicidal, the trial Court erred in holding that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused persons. As such, framing of charge against the accused persons under Sections 304-B/34 IPC is illegal. He submitted that the charge was framed mechanically without considering the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased. She ordinarily stays at Cuttack with her husband. The husband of the deceased was working in Rourkela Steel Plant and the deceased was residing with him there. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had gone to Rourkela to visit her son a week prior to the incident and there is no evidence of torture or dowry demand by the peti¬tioner prior to the incident. Therefore, framing of charge under Section 304-B/34 IPC against her is bad in law. 4. Mr. S. K. Nayak, learned Addl. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had gone to Rourkela to visit her son a week prior to the incident and there is no evidence of torture or dowry demand by the peti¬tioner prior to the incident. Therefore, framing of charge under Section 304-B/34 IPC against her is bad in law. 4. Mr. S. K. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in framing charge under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC read with Section 4 D.P. Act against the petitioner and the co-accused inasmuch as there are ample materials regarding existence of prima facie case against them. The statement of the informant coupled with that of the brother, sister, friend and neighbour of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveals a case under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 5. Perused the case diary. In the instant case, the mar¬riage was solemnized on 13.12.2002 and the deceased died on 26.06.2005 in abnormal circumstances, i.e., within the 7 years of the marriage. The apex Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 , has held that at the stage of framing charge 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. In Kanti Bhadrak Shah & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) SCC 722 , it has been held that if the reasons relating to framing of charge are recorded in case of framing of charge, there is likelihood of prejudicing the case of the ac¬cused put on trial. In Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar through CBI (AHD) Patna, (2007) 36 OCR (SC) 548, it has been held that at the time of framing of charge, the requirement is that the trial Court forms the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that accused had committed the offence which he is competent to try. In such situation, he is only required to frame a charge in writing against the accused. But for discharging the accused, the reasons should be recorded. 6. In such situation, he is only required to frame a charge in writing against the accused. But for discharging the accused, the reasons should be recorded. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case vis a vis the ratio decided in the aforesaid cases, this Court comes to the conclusion that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the trial Court in framing charge against the petitioner. The revision is devoid of any merit and is ac¬cordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.