Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 23 (JHR)

Fulwati Devi @ Fulvati Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2010-01-05

D.K.SINHA

body2010
JUDGMENT D.K.Sinha,J. This Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 20.06.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2008 arising out of Dhurki P.S. Case No. 11 of 2004 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for her discharge under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected for the alleged offence under Section 302 r/w Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story in short was that the informant Rajendra Prasad Yadav had married his cousin (sister)Binda Devi in his own village with the accused Manick Chand Yadav. Since the father of Binda Devi was dead so the informant being the cousin brother had borne all the marriage expenses incurred in the marriage ceremony and thereafter Binda Devi came to her matrimonial home with her husband Manick Chand Yadav in the same village. Whenever the informant visited her she used to complain that her husband had been demanding Rs.25,000/- to be brought from her widow mother to start a business of his own but as her mother was incapable, her husband used to assault her. The informant tried to pacify and resolve the dispute and also requested his brother-in-law to live peacefully but of no avail. On 05.05.2004 he was informed by one Lallu Yadav that his cousin (sister) was dead. On such information, the informant went there and found her lying dead in her matrimonial home. Within span of four years of her marriage she had no issue from the wedlock and as the mother of the deceased was living at the distance of about 200 k.m. in the State of Chhatishgarh, the informant was in difficult situation to call for her and then he instituted police case. The informant narrated that he found blood clot like injury near the chin and nose of the deceased and blood was oozing out from her nostrils. 3. The case was initially instituted against the husband for the alleged offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. However, in course of investigation, the informant in his restatement before the Investigating Officer narrated that Manick Chand Yadav i.e. the husband of the deceased had illicit relationship with the petitioner Fulwati Devi @ Fulvati Devi and she used to instigate Manick Chand Yadav to beat his wife. However, in course of investigation, the informant in his restatement before the Investigating Officer narrated that Manick Chand Yadav i.e. the husband of the deceased had illicit relationship with the petitioner Fulwati Devi @ Fulvati Devi and she used to instigate Manick Chand Yadav to beat his wife. About two days prior to the alleged occurrence Manick Chand Yadav had assaulted and beaten Binda Devi on the instigation of Fulwati Devi @ Fulvati Devi. He further alleged that when Binda Devi conceived out of her wedlock, her pregnancy was terminated. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petition of the petitioner preferred under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed on erroneous consideration. The petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R. nor her nexus with the alleged murder of Binda Devi could be disclosed by any witness or inferred by circumstance. She was not the ultimate beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry and not at all concerned, or connected with the husband of the deceased. The husband Manick Chand Yadav was acquitted from the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code on full trial and there is no material against the petitioner to put her to stand charge for the offence under Section 304B/109 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned A.P.P. opposed the contention and submitted that the postmortem examination of the deceased suggested ante-mortem injuries caused by hard and blunt substance and in the opinion of the Doctor the cause of death was poisoning. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while discussing on the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure found, prima facie, material by putting the restatement of the informant as also the statement of one Ramji Yadav. The statement of these witnesses corroborated by one Lalmuni Prasad who narrated that the husband Manick Chand Yadav was having illicit relationship with Fulwati Devi @ Fulvati Devi, who was his "Bhaujai" and the accused persons had administered poison after causing injury on the person of the deceased. 6. The statement of these witnesses corroborated by one Lalmuni Prasad who narrated that the husband Manick Chand Yadav was having illicit relationship with Fulwati Devi @ Fulvati Devi, who was his "Bhaujai" and the accused persons had administered poison after causing injury on the person of the deceased. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties and upon careful perusal of the order impugned, I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I was justified in rejecting the petition of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a prima facie case was there against the petitioner in the statement of the witnesses examined in course of investigation of the case. The learned Counsel failed to produce any convincing ground so as to call for interference in the impugned order. 7. There being no merit, this petition is dismissed.