Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 37 (JHR)

Namita Devi @ Baby v. State of Jharkhand

2009-01-09

JAYA ROY

body2009
JUDGMENT The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision for setting aside the order dated 17.2.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R.Case No. 1706 of 2005 whereby he has rejected the petition under section 227 Cr.P.C for discharge the petitioners. The prosecution case in brief is that Suman Devi wife of the petitioner no.5 Birender Narayan Rowani, lodged a written information to the officer-incharge, Katras Police Station stating therein that her marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu Rites and custom on 26..4.2002 with Birender Narayan Rawani . At the time of marriage her father had given a number of gifts and a sum of rupees fifty thousands for purchase of Hero Honda as demanded by her in-laws. But they did not purchase the Motor Cycle. After some time, her husband, mother in-law and brother-in-law again asked her to bring Hero Honda Motor bike. She informed her parents about the same. Her father came to her matrimonial home and tried to pacify. They remain peaceful for some times but again they started torturing physically and mentally for their demand. Ultimately on 23.4.2005 her mother-in-law and brother-in-law came to her and asked for bringing money for Hero Honda Motor bike and threatened her to kill her and the said three persons assaulted her physically. Hearing all this things her mother and brother came to her quarter on 25.4.2005 and asked them as to why they behave with her daughter in this way. The accused persons assaulted her mother and brother also and then they left the quarter. The informant further alleged when the accused persons did not return to her quarter, she also locked the quarter and went to her parent’s house. It is further stated that her sister in-law and her husband had also their hands in this matter. On the basis of the aforesaid written information, a case has been registered under section 498A I.P.C and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. 2. Mr.Baban Lall, Sr.Advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that the informant has lodged this case against the petitioners only to harass them and the entire prosecution case as alleged is false and baseless and there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. 3. 2. Mr.Baban Lall, Sr.Advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that the informant has lodged this case against the petitioners only to harass them and the entire prosecution case as alleged is false and baseless and there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. 3. It is further contended that the petitioner no.1 and 2 i.e. sister-in-law of the informant and her husband are residing at Koila Nagar under Seraidella Police Station, quite a far from the informants house. The petitioner no.3 Santi Devi widow mother-in-law and the petitioner no.4 brother-in-law( Dewar) have also been residing in Dhanbad and they never visited the quarter of the informant where the informant lives with her husband and as such they have no concerned with the informant. 4. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though alleged occurrence has been taken place on 25.4.2005 but information given to the Police Station after a month i.e. on 28.5.2005 and no cogent reason has been assigned for the said delay. 5. The Counsel appearing for the opposite party contended that as per written report there are specific allegations against all the petitioners for assault and also for demand of Dowry in form of Hero Honda Motor bike. Further he has submitted that it has specifically been asserted that the said occurrence has been committed at the instance of the accused Nomita Devi (Nanad) and her husband Manik Rawani. 6. From the F.I.R and impugned order I find there are ample materials in the case diary against the petitioners. The impugned order shows that during course of the investigation, the informant herself reiterated the said allegations in para 4 and P.W. Subhas Kumar in para 32 and P.W.Baleshwar Ram in para 34 of the case diary, have fully supported the prosecution case. After conclusion of the investigation, the I.O. too has come to the conclusion mentioned in para 37 of the Case Diary that all the five accused persons participated in the alleged occurrence. 7. I find from the F.I.R that delay has been properly explained by the informant. 8. After conclusion of the investigation, the I.O. too has come to the conclusion mentioned in para 37 of the Case Diary that all the five accused persons participated in the alleged occurrence. 7. I find from the F.I.R that delay has been properly explained by the informant. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Bihar –Vs-Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 , while examining the scope of Sections 227 and 228, Cr.P.C observed: …“Reading the two provisions 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 weight 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., Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilty at the conclusion of the trial. But 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…” 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court which even to day holds good, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly the Revision application is dismissed.