Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1384 (JHR)

Nikhat Jahan v. State of Jharkhand

2008-12-04

JAYA ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has filed the instant revision application for setting aside the order dated 08.01.2007 whereby the court below has refused to discharge the petitioner (Nikhat Jhahan) from Barihatu P.S. Case No. 161of 2005/ S.T. No. 547 of 2006 registered for the offence under Section 341/323/324/498A/307 and 108 of Indian Penal Code against her. This case was instituted on the basis of a written report of the informant Rafat Jahan, wife of Muslim Ahmad Choudhary stating therein that her husband Muslim Ahmad Choudhary after the marriage, started demanding Rs.5,00,000/-(five lakhs) and subjecting the informant to mental cruelty on which her brother Sahnawaj tried to reconcile the matter but could not. The further allegation is that on 15.11.2005 in the evening, the husband of the informant entered into the house and started assaulting the informant by leg and fist due to which her teeth were broken and she received bleeding injury in her finger. Thereafter, he dragged her in the kitchen and tried to burn her by pouring kerosene oil on her body but she managed to escape. It is further alleged that her husband has illegal relation with the accused Nikhat Jahan (the present petitioner) and on her instigation he has tried to take away of her life. Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that during investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of thirteen witnesses but they have not stated anything against the petitioner. Furthermore as the petitioner is not a close relative of the husband of the informant, the provision under Section 498A I.P.C. is not applicable to the petitioner. The counsel for the State referred various paragraphs of the case diary and submitted that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. I have gone through the impugned order and the F.I.R which shows that the allegation against the petitioner is only to the extent that she has extra marital relation with the husband of the informant and on her dictate the husband of the informant is bent upon to take the life of the informant. I have gone through the impugned order and the F.I.R which shows that the allegation against the petitioner is only to the extent that she has extra marital relation with the husband of the informant and on her dictate the husband of the informant is bent upon to take the life of the informant. But I find from the impugned order where a number of paragraphs of the case diary has been discussed and ultimately the trial court has opined that though the I.O. has recorded the statements of various witnesses, but they have not supported the prosecution case rather stated against the informant. I further find from the impugned order that the informant side used to quarrel with her husband and the cause of the quarrel was only for the objection raised by the husband against the visit of Juber Bhai in their Flat. The trial court has discussed in its order the contents of the important paragraphs of the case diary very elaborately. It is significant to note that the trial court has recorded at Para 8 of the impugned order that:- “The I.O. has recorded the statements of various witnesses who have also not supported the prosecution case, rather stated something against the informant. These witnesses have stated that often quarrel used to take place between the accused Muslim Ahmad Choudhary on one side and his wife (informant),Sas, Sala on the other side, and that the informant side used jto do quarrel with the accused and that the cause of quarrel was the objection raised by the accused against the objectionable visits of one Juber Bhai in the flat of the accused where the informant and her mother, brothers etc. used to reside”. This creates and impression that the informant has giving and exaggerate story in the F.I.R as counterblast of her relationship with Juber Bhai and the petitioner Nikhat Jhahan has been brought in the scene. Thus it is very clear from these discussions made above that prima-facie the prosecution is not able to prove the ingredients of the offence under section 341, 323,324,498A, 307 and 108 of I.P.C. against the petitioner Nikhat Jahan. Accordingly the impugned order dated 8.1.2007 passed in S.T.No. 547 of 2006 is set aside in respect of the petitioner Nikhat Jhahan and as such she is discharged at the stage. Accordingly the impugned order dated 8.1.2007 passed in S.T.No. 547 of 2006 is set aside in respect of the petitioner Nikhat Jhahan and as such she is discharged at the stage. However it is made clear that if the trial court after taking evidence during the trial, find that the petitioner has committed an offence under section 341, 323, 324, 498A , 307 and 108 of I.P.C or anyone of these sections, the trial court under section 319 of Cr.P.C has got every power to proceed under said section against her ( Nikhat Jahan ) even she has been discharged. In the result this revision application is allowed and the petitioner Nikhat Jahan has been discharged at this stage from the offence under aforesaid sections.