Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 902 (JHR)

Nimai Chandra Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

2009-06-30

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
Order Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the informant. 2. The instant revision application is directed against the order dated 7.3.2008 by which order learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro issued summons on the petitioners u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C. Earlier notice was issued to the opposite party for hearing and disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the evidences of the witnesses examined during trial i.e. P.W. 1 Awani Dhar Manjhi, P.W. 2 Rupa Shree Manjhi and P.W. 3. Ranjit Kumar Manjhi, it appears that none of the witnesses made any allegation to make out a case against these petitioners who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law of the informant, Rupa Shree Devi. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision reported in "2009(2) Eastern India Criminal Cases Page 144, Gaurchandra Gorain & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. wherein it has been held that there must be evidence during trial or enquiry that the person summoned has committed some offence. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that all the three witnesses have stated that the victim girl used to be tortured by the petitioners for dowry and as such there is sufficient evidence to frame charge against the petitioners u/s 498A I.P.C. He has also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in "2009(2) Eastern India Criminal Cases Page 48, Ram Pal Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr wherein it has been held that if a person has been named in the F.I.R. and no charge-sheet is filed against him, but witnesses named him and made out a case against him during trial then he must be summoned u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C. 6. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the informant, Rupa Shree Devi has named these petitioners in the FI.R. However no charge-sheet was filed against -them and during trial it appears that all the three witnesses have named the petitioners in the crime committed against the informant. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the informant, Rupa Shree Devi has named these petitioners in the FI.R. However no charge-sheet was filed against -them and during trial it appears that all the three witnesses have named the petitioners in the crime committed against the informant. P.W. 1 Awani Dhar Manjhi has clearly stated that the petitioners started torturing the victim girl for dowry and even demanded that until and unless 3 bighas of land is registered in favour of their father, they would not allow her to live in the house. In the cross-examination also he has supported the said fact. P.W. 2, the victim girl, Rupa Shree Manjhi has also stated that after two years of marriage these petitioners started torturing her and demanded 3 bighas of land from her father and stated that if 3 bighas of land are not given to them, she would be killed. She has supported her statement in her cross-examination also. P.W.3., Ranjit Kumar Manjhi, has also supported the same. As such, there are clear evidences against the petitioners to make out a case u/s 498A of the I.P.C. and the trial court has rightly summoned them. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners also supported the same that if there is evidence against a person, then summons can be issued. 7. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit the revision application and the same is accordingly dismissed.