Court: Jharkhand High Court
Bench: JUSTICE D.K. Sinha
Kailash Mandal & Anr. Vs. State Of Jharkhand On 18 March 2011
Law Point:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 319, 482 — Dowry Death — No specific overt act attributed against petitioners, mother-in-law and father-in-law of deceased — Allegations general in nature — Other witnesses have not supported contention of PWs 6 and 7 out of 14 witnesses already examined — No prima facie case against petitioners to be arrayed as accused for charge under Section 304-B, IPC so as to summon petitioners under Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code — Impugned order quashed.
JUDGEMENT
1. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 7.2.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Rajmahal, Sahibgang by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed in S.C. No. 91 of 2007 arising out of Rajmahal PS. Case No. 199 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 426 of 2006 and the summons was directed to be issued against the petitioners to be added for the charge under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioner No. 1 Kailash Mandal is the father-in-law whereas the petitioner No. 2 Sita Devi is the mother-in-law of the deceased.
3. The prosecution story in short was that the mother of the deceased presented a written report before the police that her daughter Suman Devi (since deceased) was married to the accused Sanjay Mandal some two years ago in which adequate dowry was given to the accused persons but accused-husband Sanjay Mandal and his father Kailash Mandal used to torture her daughter and demanded balance amount to the tune of Rs. 50.000. About five months ago prior to the alleged death, Sanjay Mandal had taken away his wife Suman Devi to his home reiterating demand of dowry and started perpetrating torture to which father of the deceased tried to resolve the matter but the accused and his father were adament and did not allow his daughter to go with him. The informant received information an telephone that her daughter was done to death by setting her on fire by Sanjay Mandal and his father and on such information she went there and found the information true.
4. As the allegation was made only against the son-in-law Sanjay Mandal and his father Kailash Mandal, Rajmahal P.S. case No. 199 of 2006 was instituted under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code against only two persons. It was stated that charge-sheet was submitted under Section 304(B) only against husband Sanjay Mandal and not against the petitioners who were admittedly the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased as no material could be found in course of investigation against them.
5. I find from the order impugned dated 7.2.2009 that after framing of charge under Sections 304(B)/498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-husband on 23.6.2007 as many as 14 witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of whom P.W.6 Kiran Devi i.e. the informant as well as mother of the deceased testified that all the three accused always used to quarrel with her daughter and had been making demand of Rs. 50,000 in cash as dowry and it continued till her death. Though his daughter was pregnant but she was not allowed by them to go to her parental home. Munna Mandal i.e. brother of the deceased (P.W.7) deposed that accused Sanjay Mandal and his mother used to torture his sister for dowry and that his sister was assaulted by the accused persons and was also burnt to death by them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that in the FIR the name of the father and the principal accused Sanjay Mandal was incorporated and both had been demanding Rs. 50,000 as dowry and in this connection they used to torture her and also burnt her to death. The learned Sessions Judge further observed that these facts clearly suggested the involvement of both the father and mother of the principal accused in commission of the offence as such they deserve to be tried together with Sanjay Mandal in the instant case and, accordingly, petition filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the prosecution was allowed and summons were directed to be issued against these petitioners.
6. From perusal of the FIR 1 find that the allegation was made against the son-in-law and his father Kailash Mandal and no specific overt act was attributed at all against the mother-in- law of the deceased. In the evidence of the informant and her son I find that the allegation against the mother-in-law and father-in-law is general and no specific overt act has been attributed except by saying that the father was also siding with his son Sanjay Mandal in demanding Rs. 50.000. The other witnesses perhaps have not supported the contention of these two witnesses out of 14 witness already examined. Therefore, I do not find any prima facie case against the petitioners to be arrayed as the accused for the charge under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code so as to summons the petitioners under Sections 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accordingly, order impugned dated 7.2.2009 cannot be sustained under the law and same is set aside. This petition is allowed.
Petition allowed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment