Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 320 (JHR)

Badshah Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2008-03-14

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order In this revision application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.7.2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in ST No. 323 of 2004 whereby the petitioners' prayer for their discharge from the case under section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without application of judicial mind to the materials on record and to the fact that even on the basis of the materials disclosed in the case diary submitted by the investigating officer, there is no cogent and reliable evidence for prosecuting the petitioners for the offences under sections 3048/1208/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel explains that though admittedly, the petitioners happen to be members of the matrimonial house of the deceased and are related to the husband of the deceased living in the same house, but merely because of their relationship these petitioners cannot be made liable for the suicide committed by the deceased who set herself on fire, that too in absence of any of the petitioners at the time of the occurrence. Learned counsel submits further that even as the case diary would reveal, the incident occurred in the early hours of morning on 29.9.2001 when the deceased was all alone in the house cooking food on a kerosene stove for her son when no other member of the matrimonial family was present in the house. The lady caught fire accidentally from the kerosene stove. On her alarms, neighbouring residents collected who promptly took her to the hospital. The police arrived at the hospital and before the police in presence of the doctors, compounders and other persons, the lady gave her statement that she had accidentally caught fire by the kerosene stove while cooking. Learned counsel adds further that this fact has been confirmed by the statement of the attending doctors, compounders and others in whose presence the victim had made her statement.Under such circumstance and in the light of such evidence, the petitioners could not have been held liable for the burn injuries sustained by the deceased and no charge-sheet could have been filed by the investigating officer recommending trial of the petitioners. It is also argued that the court below has failed to consider the above facts available in the case diary, and which go to prove the innocence of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, would refute the entire grounds advanced on behalf of the petitioners and while inviting attention to the observations recorded by the court below in the impugned order would explain that though the case diary does indicate at certain paragraphs purportedly that statement of the deceased was recorded by the police wherein she explained the cause of burn. injuries as due to accidental fire which she caught while cooking rice on the stove, but at a subsequent stage, the statement of the victim was recorded again by the police officer in the presence of the witnesses which was even videographed and she categorically stated in her statement that her mother-in-law and members of her in-laws' family used to subject her to torture and cruelty on account of nonfulfilment of their demand for the motorcycle and that they had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire resulting in her burn injuries. 4. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below has considered the submissions advanced by the petitioners which include the contention that at certain paragraphs of the case diary, statement of the victim as also those of the witnesses were recorded suggesting that the deceased sustained burn injuries accidentally and had also considered the submissions of the learned Prosecutor while going through the materials in the case diary wherein reference to the statement of the victim was made in the Bhojpuri language, which was also videographed, and wherein there is direct categorical allegation against the petitioners and the husband of the deceased of having cased the fatal burn injuries to her. 5. Apparently, there are two sets of evidence contradicting each other and under which the truth appears to have been shadowed. In order to find the truth, it would be necessary to ascertain as to under what circumstances were two statements differently made by the victim? What was the mental and physical condition of the lady at the time of her making statements? Whether there was possibility of any extraneous pressure in her mind for making the statements as claimed by both parties. What was the mental and physical condition of the lady at the time of her making statements? Whether there was possibility of any extraneous pressure in her mind for making the statements as claimed by both parties. This exercise can be carried out only in course of the trial. At the stage of framing of charge, the trial court needs only to consider whether there is prima facie material by way of evidence to suggest certain offences and if so, it would be within the competence of the trial court to frame charges for the offences and to proceed with the trial. As rightly observed by the court below, the trial court is not called upon to embark upon making evaluation of the evidence at the stage of framing charge and even on a strong suspicion, charge can be framed. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. 6. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any merit in this revision application, which is dismissed. Needless to say that the petitioners will be at liberty to raise all points by adducing evidence in support of their defence.