Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 261 (JHR)

Nisat Ahmad v. State of Jharkhand

2014-02-18

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
ORDER : H.C. Mishra, J. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the learned A.J.C.-XIII, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 856 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner u/s 227 of the Cr.P.C., for discharge, has been rejected by the Court below. 3. The petitioner has been made accused in Doranda P.S. Case No. 44 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 478 of 2009, for the offence u/s 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, but after investigation the police had submitted the charge-sheet u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written application given by the mother of the deceased lady, addressed to the Sr. S.P., Ranchi, Jharkhand, wherein she has stated that her daughter was married to the petitioner in the year 2002. The petitioner is in the police service and was working as Body Guard of the then Chief Minister. On 16.06.2008 at about mid night a telephone call was received from the petitioner that his wife was seriously ill and was suffering from diarrhoea, where upon the informant along with her husband and son went to the quarter of the petitioner and found her daughter in an unconscious condition. She was brought to the hospital where she was declared dead. The police was also informed by the doctor as the death appeared to be suspicious and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. However, in view of the fact that the deceased had two daughters and at the pressure of the petitioner, the husband of the informant informed the police that he had no suspicion against the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner also insisted upon her husband to give in writing at the police station regarding the innocence of the petitioner, in view of the future of the daughters, which was also done. It is alleged that thereafter, the petitioner started pressurising the informant to marry her second daughter to the petitioner and thereafter he also gave a cassette from which it transpired that he had established intimate relation with the second daughter of the informant and had also sexually exploited her. It is alleged that thereafter, the petitioner started pressurising the informant to marry her second daughter to the petitioner and thereafter he also gave a cassette from which it transpired that he had established intimate relation with the second daughter of the informant and had also sexually exploited her. It is alleged that the marriage of her second daughter was already fixed elsewhere, but in order to remove his wife from the way, the petitioner committed the murder of his wife. On the basis of the said application given to the Sr. S.P. Ranchi, the police case was instituted and investigation was taken up. It may be stated that in the post-mortem of the deceased the death was found to be caused due to hanging. The police after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Session, where the petitioner filed his application for discharge u/s 227 of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the Court below stating that there were materials in the case diary to frame the charge against the petitioner and the prima-facie offence was made out against him u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, none of the witnesses has stated anything against the petitioner. It is also submitted that even the father, brother and sisters of the deceased have not spoken anything against him and even the informant, who is the mother of the deceased, has not given any such statement before the police implicating the petitioner. The statements of the independent witnesses have also been recorded who have also not spoken anything against the petitioner, rather they have stated that there was cordial relationship between the petitioner and his wife, but his wife used to remain ill due to which she had committed suicide. Learned counsel has submitted that during investigation it has been found that the deceased was in depression due to the fact that she had only two daughters, due to which she committed suicide. Learned counsel has submitted that during investigation it has been found that the deceased was in depression due to the fact that she had only two daughters, due to which she committed suicide. Learned counsel accordingly, prayed that there being no material in the entire case diary to frame charge u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, putting the petitioner to trial shall be sheer misuse of the process of Court and this is a fit case for discharge. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 7. I have also gone through the case diary. From perusal of the case diary I find that though the independent witnesses have not supported the case and even the father and brother of the deceased have also not stated anything against this petitioner, but upon perusal of the case diary I find that even these witnesses have stated that they were informed that the deceased was seriously ill, whereupon they went there and found the deceased in unconscious condition. Subsequently it was found that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. It is thus apparent that none of these witnesses have stated that they were informed that the deceased had committed suicide, rather they were given false information that the deceased was seriously ill. From the statement of the mother of the deceased, who is also the informant in the case, it appears that though she has also not stated much against the petitioner, but she has stated that the petitioner started pressuring them for marriage of her second daughter to him and he made several allegations against her and he also tried to prevent the marriage of her second daughter, which was fixed elsewhere. However, when asked about the cassette she did not reply anything. The father of the victim had stated that the petitioner informed him that his daughter was seriously ill and when he went there he found his daughter unconscious and she was declared dead. He has also stated that his statement was recorded earlier, on the basis of which U.D. Case was instituted and in post mortem, it was found that his daughter had committed suicide. However, he has again stated that he had no suspicion over the petitioner. He has also stated that his statement was recorded earlier, on the basis of which U.D. Case was instituted and in post mortem, it was found that his daughter had committed suicide. However, he has again stated that he had no suspicion over the petitioner. The statement of the second daughter of the informant was also recorded, wherein she has also stated her marriage was fixed at Kolkata, but the same was not agreeable to the petitioner and he had objected to that relationship, due to which there was no tension in the house. She has also stated that her brother-in-law always used to scold and give threatening. It also appears from the case diary that when the investigating officer again recorded the statements of the father and mother of the deceased, they also stated about the cassette and they stated that the cassette was with the petitioner himself. The post mortem report available in the case diary clearly shows that though the doctor found that the death was caused due to asphyxia due to hanging and there were ligature marks round the neck, but there appears to be some anti-mortem injuries also on the dead body. Admittedly the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the deceased was found dead in the house of this petitioner. In view of these materials on record I am of the considered view that it cannot be said at this stage that there is absolutely no material against the petitioner for framing charge u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. I find that the Court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner u/s 227 of the Cr.P.C. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed the learned Court below worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application, and the same is, accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.