Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1155 (JHR)

Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in Simdega P.S. Case No. 77 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the discharge application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the entire incident is alleged to have taken place at Sasaram (Bihar) and therefore the Court at Simdega does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. It has been stated that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is no allegation of any torture or demand of dowry made by the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submits that the informant was very much present at the time of cremation but very cleverly he has not stated in the First Information Report and story has been made out that the informant could come to know that his daughter has been murdered and cremated at Varanasi. Learned senior counsel further submits that only to extract money and the articles which were given at the time of marriage a false criminal case has been instituted against the petitioner. It has further been stated that the statement of the witnesses would reveal the true fact about the involvement of the informant accompanying the deceased as well as the accused persons from Sasaram to Varanasi for cremating his daughter. It has therefore, been submitted that the learned trial Court although has referred to certain paragraphs of the case diary but has not properly appreciated the statements of the witnesses in the said paragraphs which run contrary to the allegation made by the informant. 4. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has stated that other accused persons have been convicted by the learned trial Court while the petitioner was absconding for more than seventeen years. It has been stated that the question of territorial jurisdiction has already been decided in Cr. M.P. No. 485 of 2004. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was well aware of the criminal proceeding but he had absconded and the present application is liable to be dismissed. 5. It has been stated that the question of territorial jurisdiction has already been decided in Cr. M.P. No. 485 of 2004. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was well aware of the criminal proceeding but he had absconded and the present application is liable to be dismissed. 5. The First Information Report which was instituted by the informant has revealed that the daughter of the informant was married with the petitioner at Sasaram and she was subjected to cruelty due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. It is alleged that on 21.03.1996 he had taken the Bedai of his daughter and brought her to her parental house. It is also alleged that on 31.03.1996 the accused persons had come and on the pretext that she has to go to Delhi with the petitioner Bedai was taken. It is also alleged that after some months the informant could come to know that his daughter has been murdered and cremated at Varanasi. 6. The petitioner who is the husband of the deceased who is prime accused in the present case had remained absconding for almost seventeen years. For the purpose of deciding the issue at hand the case diary has been perused the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to Paragraphs 37, 74, 101, 106, 120, 130, 137 and 138 of the case diary. Most of the paragraphs referred to above by learned senior counsel for the petitioner reveals the statements of the witnesses who had stated that the deceased had lost her mental balance and she became unconscious and the doctor having declared her dead she was taken to Varanasi where she was cremated. The witnesses in Paragraphs 101, 106, 120, 137 and 138 have stated about the natural death, of the daughter of the informant and that the informant was present at the time of cremation at Varanasi where he had accompanied the dead body of the deceased along with the accused persons. The statements of the witnesses as mentioned above would tend to project a picture about the non-involvement of the petitioner. But the entire affair takes a u-turn when the judgment passed in the case of Ramadhar Singh and Parasnath Singh is taken into consideration. The statements of the witnesses as mentioned above would tend to project a picture about the non-involvement of the petitioner. But the entire affair takes a u-turn when the judgment passed in the case of Ramadhar Singh and Parasnath Singh is taken into consideration. Both the aforesaid accused have been convicted by the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The evidence which has been considered is totally contrary to what has been mentioned in the case diary. For example, the statement of one witness Kamlesh Kumar Singh has been recorded in Paragraph 120 of the case diary who had stated about the presence of the informant when the last ritual of the deceased was being done. But the said Kamlesh Singh who is examined as PW 4 as stated about the cruelty and the demand of petitioner apart from considering the fact that he had come to know after two months that the daughter of the informant had been murdered. 7. In such fact situation, therefore, it would be premature to presume the non-involvement of the petitioner in the death of his wife. The conduct of the petitioner has also to be noted herein. The petitioner was made an accused in the case instituted in the year 1996 and he remained absconding for a period of almost seventeen years although he was well aware of the pendency of the criminal case against him. The question of territorial jurisdiction has been given a feeble attempt by the petitioner but in view of the observation made in Cr. M.P. No. 485 of 2008 the question of territorial jurisdiction as has been raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner also cannot be decided at this stage. 8. Consequent to the discussions made hereinabove, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in Simdega P.S. Case No. 77 of 1996. This application, therefore, sans merit is, hereby, dismissed. Application dismissed.