Amit Anand vs State Of Jharkhand

Ratnaker Bhengra, J

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Pakur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 05 of 2024 in connection with Pakur(T) P.S. Case No. 504 of 2015 lodged under sections 498(A), 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently charge sheet submitted and cognizance taken under section 498(A), 307, 504, 506, 34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, consequent G.R. No. 1161 of 2015, corresponding Session Trial Case No. 16 of 2020, wherein the learned Court below has rejected the application for discharge from section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code that was preferred by the petitioner, presently pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Pakur.

The case of prosecution is based on the typed information of one Preeti Bhagat against four persons including the petitioner who is the husband of the Preeti Bhagat, with an allegation that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 06.05.2011 at Purnia where she started to live with her husband. It has been stated that about Rs. 7,50,000/- was given by the father of informant to father-in-law Jay Prakash Bhagat as expenses of marriage and spent Rs. 3,00,000/- by the father of informant as a gift in Tilak which includes household articles and ornaments and after few months of their marriage, informant lead a happy conjugal life but thereafter accused persons started torture upon her and on abetment of her in-laws the petitioner used to assault her in spite of the fact that she was pregnant, and thereafter, she was blessed with a baby. It is further alleged that the family members of her in-laws started demanding Rs. 10,00,000/- as dowry and also gave threat to face dire consequences. It is further alleged that the informant narrated the same to her father, and thereafter, upon the interference and request made by her father she remained peacefully at her in-laws house for about 10 to 15 days. It is further alleged that again her in-laws started assaulting her due to which she sustained injuries on her eyes and nose. It is further alleged that on 17.04.2015 accused persons assaulted her as a result of which she sustained injuries on upper portion of her eyes and she was taken to doctor for treatment, medical report of which has been annexed with the FIR. It is further alleged that on 17.06.2015, while the informant was sleeping in her room then her husband tried to press her neck but she somehow managed to escape and informed about the incident to her father, upon which her father came at her matrimonial home and brought back the informant with him on 18.06.2015 to Pakur, thereafter on 13.10.2015 the petitioner came at Pakur and started assaulting her and when her parents and relatives came he started abusing them and stated that unless demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- is not met, he would not keep informant with him, thereafter, he went back to Purnia. Thereafter, again the petitioner came to Pakur and started to abuse the family members of the informant. On apprehension, Pakur(Town) P.S Case No. 504 of 2015 dated 28.12.2015 under sections 498A, 307/34 of IPC was registered.

Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner had preferred Cr. M.P No. 2118 of 2016 which was rejected by this court, however Cr. M.P No. 1955 of 2016 filed by the father-in-law of the informant vide order dated 23.11.2023 was allowed by quashing the entire proceeding against him

The learned counsel further submitted that injuries sustained by the informant was simple in nature and was not caused on any vital part of the body, and also not fatal to the life of the informant, as such no offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for discharge from section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, however the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Pakur vide order dated 14.03.2024 had been pleased to reject the Criminal Application No. 05 of 2024 in connection with Pakur(T) P.S. case No. 504 of 2015.

The learned counsel further submitted that from the facts of the case alleged it is not clear from the FIR as to who had assaulted the informant, and also no blood sustain was found by the IO at the place of occurrence, which indicates that the injuries sustained by the informant was simple in nature and not fatal to her life, and therefore the ingredients of section 307 of the IPC is not fulfilled in the facts of the case and also, the manner of assault is not corroborated by the injury report and also none of the witnesses have stated that petitioner was pressing the neck of the informant in order to kill her.

The learned counsel further submitted that FIR was lodged against another co-accused namely, Jay Prakash Bhagat wherein the FIR was quashed against him by this court vide order dated 23.11.2023 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 1955 of 2016, and as the petitioner stands on similar footing, his prayer in this Criminal Revision No. 406 of 2023 may be allowed.

The learned counsel for the State submitted that this matter can be resolved more appropriately at the stage of trial and not at this stage. He has further pointed out from impugned order that apart from allegations regarding demand of money there is allegation of assault and torture caused by the co-accused upon the informant, as a result of which she has sustained injuries on her nose. It is further alleged that the assaults took place on 17.04.2015 due to which she has sustained injuries on upper portion of her eyes and she was taken to doctor, the reports of which has been annexed with this F.I.R., which indicates the injuries sustained by the informant was grievous in nature. The counsel further submitted that on 17.06.2015 while the informant was sleeping in her room, the petitioner tried to press her neck but she somehow managed to escape and informed the same to her father, upon which her father brought back the informant with him and from 18.06.2015 she was residing with her child along with her parents in Pakur. Thereafter, on 02.12.2015 the petitioner came at near the house of the informant and started to abuse the family members of the informant upon which the neighbours came and due to their intervention he fled away.

The learned counsel for the State further submits that from the allegations indicated, there is sufficient and adequate details and dates given, which is a matter of trial therefore, it cannot be decided at this stage. Even the IO after investigation had submitted charge-sheet vide No. 88 of 2016 dated 31.05.2016 under sections 498A, 307, 504, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly the learned CJM, Pakur vide had taken cognizance against the petitioner and the father-in-law of the informant. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner had preferred Cr. M.P No. 2118 of 2016 which was rejected by this court, and therefore, based on the aforesaid circumstances the prayer made in the criminal revision petition may not be allowed.

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, having gone through the records of the case, and also from the submissions made, it appears that there are sufficient details regarding the alleged offence which are corroborated by the different dates as well as medical evidence brought on record and the chargesheet submitted by the IO after the investigation and also taking into account the fact that one of the Cr.MP filed by the petitioner was rejected by this court, therefore, I am not inclined to allow the Criminal Revision No. 406 of 2024, hence the prayer made in this Criminal Revision stands rejected, all the aforesaid matters are to be decided and determined at the stage of trial.

Accordingly, Criminal Revision is dismissed.