Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1633 (JHR)

Mansur Alam v. State of Jharkhand

2017-09-11

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 15.2.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. Case No. 71 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. had been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 are being sought to be prosecuted for an offence u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the informant P.W.6 in course of trial had taken the name of the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and even on the testimony of a single witness the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 could have been proceeded against. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of such contention has referred to an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tapas Das @ Bhambal vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2016 ACR 472. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the post mortem report reveals that the death was prior to 72 hours from the post mortem of the victim which would further indicate the involvement of the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 but the informant was never informed about the incident of his daughter having been done to death by the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 along with the husband of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to his Interlocutory Application No. 2956 of 2017 which contains the judgment passed in S.T. Case No. 71 of 2015 in which the husband of the deceased was convicted. Learned counsel has referred to the evidence of P.W. 6 which has been noted in paragraph 11 of the said judgment and it has once again been reiterated that the evidence of P.W.6 is sufficient to put the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 to face trial as specific allegation have been levelled against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 in committing the dowry death of the deceased. 2 to 5 to face trial as specific allegation have been levelled against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 in committing the dowry death of the deceased. It has thus been submitted that these facts having not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court the impugned order dated 15.2.2017 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has submitted that if the sole testimony of a witness goes uncorroborated or if the surrounding circumstances do not support the version as has been depicted by PW6 the same cannot be relied upon and therefore on such consideration the application preferred by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. had rightly been rejected. Learned senior counsel further submits that after investigation charge-sheet was submitted only against the husband of the deceased whereas the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were not sent up for trial but the petitioner had never chosen to challenge the acceptance of the final form so far as the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 are concerned. Learned senior counsel thus submits that the evidence of P.W.6 having not been corroborated by any of the witness the impugned order dated 15.2.2017 does not necessitate any interference. 5. It appears from perusal of the order dated 15.2.2017 that the application preferred by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was solely based on the evidence of P.W.6 the informant who is said to have cast certain aspersions against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 but it further appears that the evidence of P.W. 6 has neither been supported nor have been corroborated by any of the other witnesses which would justify the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. be allowed in favour of the prosecution. As many as 11 prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor have been examined and after the last witness was examined on 5.1.2017 the application preferred by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was tiled on 31.1.2017. As many as 11 prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor have been examined and after the last witness was examined on 5.1.2017 the application preferred by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was tiled on 31.1.2017. Although learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has submitted that the evidence of a single witness can be taken into consideration in deciding an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for which he has referred to the case of Tapas Das @ Bhambal vs. State of West Bengal (supra) but as would be evident the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that ultimately the totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration. It is an admitted fact that the evidence of P.W. 6 has not been corroborated by any of the witness examined by the prosecution and even the surrounding circumstances with respect to what has been stated by P.W. 6 also doesn't finds support from the evidence of the other witnesses. 6. Such circumstances, therefore, disentitles the petitioner to prosecute the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and since the entire facets of the case have appreciably been considered by the learned trial court in its order dated 15.2.2017, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.