Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1000 (PAT)

Umesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Bihar

2009-07-29

body2009
ORDER The complainant of complaint case no. 724 of 1998 giving rise to Daudnagar P .S. Case No. 159 of 1998 and then Sessions Trial No. 303 of 2006 has filed this application for quashing the order dated 28.5.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, F.T.C. No.3, Aurangabad whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Sunita Kumari and Rubi Kumari to face the trial alongwith the other accused who are already facing the trial. 2. The complainant had filed the aforesaid complaint case after a delay of four months regarding an occurrence purportedly taking place on 25.6.1998 which was transmitted under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned police station and on the basis thereof Daudnagar P .S. Case No. 159 of 1998 was registered under Sections 304B and 201/34 I.P.C. against the six persons arrayed as accused in the complaint petition. 3. The prosecution case inter alia is that the marriage of the informant's daughter Pushpa Devi was solemnised with Dharmendra Sharma on 29.5.1992 whereafter she went to the matrimonial home where her father-in-law Lalan Sharma, uncle-in-law Bhagwan Sharma, his wife Girja Devi and Nanads Sunita Kumari and Rubi Kumari started demanding a Rajdoot Motorcycle and since the demand could not be fulfilled, Pushpa was subjected to torture and was faced with threat of being deserted and in consequence thereof she was brought to her paternal home at Ranchi and left there by her husband. It is alleged that the informant went to the matrimonial home of the daughter and tried to reason with them but the accused persons were adamant in their demand of the Motorcycle and also gave out that unless the demand was made his daughter would be tortured both mentally and physically. It is said that the informant took his daughter to the matrimonial home in the fond hope that the situation would change but sadly there was no change in their behaviour and torture of Pushpa continued unabated and she was again sent back to the paternal home. It is said that the informant took his daughter to the matrimonial home in the fond hope that the situation would change but sadly there was no change in their behaviour and torture of Pushpa continued unabated and she was again sent back to the paternal home. It is further alleged that in the meantime Dharmendra came to his Sasural and gave out that if they want that Pushpa should live a decent and normal life then the demand of the Motorcycle should be fulfilled on hearing which the informant and his daughter retorted by saying that if the demand and cruelty on Pushpa persisted, legal action against the accused would have to be taken. It is also alleged that Bhagwan Sharma and his wife came to the house of the informant at Ranchi and disclosed that they had come to take back Pushpa to the matrimonial home and that she would be kept with all honour and cordiality and that no further demand for the Motorcycle would be made. The informant did not send his daughter with Bhagwan and his wife immediately and it was a few days later that he sent his daughter to the matrimonial home. It is alleged that Pushpa was again subjected to torture and cruelty and also assaulted. 4. It is alleged that on 25.6.1998 a telephonic message was received from the matrimonial home of the Pushpa regarding her death whereupon the informant requested them not to cremate the dead body as they would arrive shortly. However, as it is alleged Pushpa's dead body bad already been cremated before the informant could reach her matrimonial home. On enquiry they came to know that Pushpa had been killed by the accused persons by administering poison and the dead body was cremated surreptitiously to wipe out all evidence of the crime. 5. After due investigation a charge-sheet was submitted on 6.2.1999 against accused Dharmendra, Lalan and Bhagwan even as the investigation against the remaining three accused was kept pending and on 22.2.1999 final form was submitted against the three remaining accused showing them as innocent. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad by his order dated 5.7.1999 took cognizance under Sections 304B and 201/34 I.P.C. against the three accused only who are facing the trial and accepted the final form against the three remaining accused. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad by his order dated 5.7.1999 took cognizance under Sections 304B and 201/34 I.P.C. against the three accused only who are facing the trial and accepted the final form against the three remaining accused. The case was eventually committed to the court of Sessions where it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 303 of 2006 and charges were framed and two witnesses, Madeshwar Sharma and the informant, were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively and as according to the informant, there appeared sufficient materials against the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 herein regarding their complicity in the crime of administering poison, a petition on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning opposite party nos. 2 to 4 herein as additional accused which was rejected by the impugned order. 6. It would appear from perusal of .the impugned order that the court below had perused the evidence of the two witnesses and found that their evidence in respect of complicity of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 herein was not reliable and trustworthy so as to summon them to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as additional accused. Cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Presiding Judge. 7. It appears from perusal the impugned order that the reasons which weighed with the learned court below for rejecting the petition were as follows:- (i) The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 was not believable so far as the female accused, namely, opposite parties no. 2 to 4 herein are concerned. (ii) The petition under Section 319 Cr. P.C. to summon the accused opposite party nos. 3 to 6 of the complaint petition was filed by the complainant/informant on 27.12.2006 after a lapse of about four months of the examination of the informant. (iii) A trend has developed in the recent days to falsely implicate even the innocent persons of the family in case of torture, cruelty and dowry death and that the informant had resorted to such an action even though sufficient materials were not available to show the complicity of the accused opposite parties no. 2 to 4 herein. 8. (iii) A trend has developed in the recent days to falsely implicate even the innocent persons of the family in case of torture, cruelty and dowry death and that the informant had resorted to such an action even though sufficient materials were not available to show the complicity of the accused opposite parties no. 2 to 4 herein. 8. Having perused the impugned order and the cogent reasons assigned for rejecting the petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., I find no apparent illegality or impropriety on the part of the learned court below so as to interfere with the said order. That apart the husband, father-in-law and uncle-in-law are already facing the trial. 9. Having accepted the reasoning assigned by the learned court below as good reasons for rejecting the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. I find no merit in this application which is hereby dismissed.