JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Anjani Kumar Toppo, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi in S. T. No. 624 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and summons have been directed to be issued against the petitioners. 3. An FIR was instituted on the Fard Beyan of Madhuri Devi recorded at Burn Unit, RIMS, Ranchi wherein it was alleged that her husband and in-laws have sprinkled kerosene oil and set her on fire. On the basis of the said allegations, Namkum P. S. Case No. 85 of 2013 for the offences under Section 326/307/34 of I.P.C. has been registered and since the informant had succumbed to her injuries, Section 304(B) of I.P.C. has been added. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 27.06.2013 under Section 304 (B)/34 of I.P.C. only against the husband of the informant namely, Rajesh Saw and so far as the rest of the accused are concerned, final form has been submitted in their favour. 4. A protest cum complaint petition was preferred by the informant against the final form submitted in favour of the parents-in-law of the informant which was disposed on 08.05.2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Dharampal & Others Vs. State of Haryana” reported in (2014) 3 SCC 306 . 5. The prosecution in course of trial had filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed on 14.08.2015 by the learned Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi and which is impugned to the present application. 6. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no admissible evidence on record to suggest the culpability of the petitioners in committing the offence of dowry death, but this fact has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. 6. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no admissible evidence on record to suggest the culpability of the petitioners in committing the offence of dowry death, but this fact has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the degree of satisfaction which is required in order to array an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is more than a prima-facie satisfaction, but absence of such degree of satisfaction as is required should have led to rejection of the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. filed by the informant. Learned counsel further submits that the father of the informant, P.W. 1 had made a categorical statement in his cross-examination that since his daughter had sustained 90% burn injuries, she was not in a position to speak. It has also been stated that in the dying declaration, there has been no whisper made by the deceased with respect to demand of dowry, but the said fact has subsequently been developed by the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. Learned counsel further submits that tenor of the impugned order does not suggest that the learned trial court was convinced about putting the petitioners on trial as no concrete or definite findings has been given with respect to the same. 7. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant on the other hand has supported the impugned order and has stated that the parents of the victim have categorically named these petitioners of demanding dowry and having tortured their daughter on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand. It has been stated that the evidence of the parents of the victim do sufficiently indicate the involvement of the petitioners in committing the offence and the degree of satisfaction which is required to array an accused in terms of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. having been satisfied, the impugned order deserves to be sustained. 8. The evidence of P.W. 1 – Mahesh Prasad Sahu and P.W. 4 – Ananti Devi who are the parents of the deceased has been brought on record and it appears that the petitioners have been named in their testimony of taking part in demanding dowry and torturing the deceased for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. 8. The evidence of P.W. 1 – Mahesh Prasad Sahu and P.W. 4 – Ananti Devi who are the parents of the deceased has been brought on record and it appears that the petitioners have been named in their testimony of taking part in demanding dowry and torturing the deceased for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 are consistent with respect to the involvement of the petitioners in commission of the offence and the learned trial court has rightly not taken into consideration the evidences of the witnesses of the vicinity considering the fact that they are neighbours of the accused. 9. Thus, the evidence of the P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 do indicate a degree of satisfaction which is much more than a prima-facie satisfaction as is required to put an accused to trial under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and the said fact having been properly appreciated by the learned trial court, no necessity arises for causing interference in the impugned order dated 14.08.2015 and accordingly, having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed.