Jwala Prasad Saw and Batua Saw vs State of Jharkhand and Harihar Saw

D.K. Sinha, J.—Pursuant to the order dated 15.1.2010 the report of the office is on the record from which I find that concerned dealing assistant has regretted for his ignorance. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that he has filed supplementary affidavit bringing certified copy of the impugned order dated 30.3.2009 on the record by which charge was framed against the petitioners under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code in S.T. No. 344 of 2008 arising out of Chhatarpur P.S. Case No. 61 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 660 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III Palamau.

This Criminal revision is directed against order impugned dated 30.3.2009 passed by the said court by which the charge was framed against the petitioners under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to the accused-petitioners in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The learned Counsel assailed the order impugned on the ground that it was a non-speaking order and was passed without application of judicial mind.

The facts of the case, in brief, was that the informant Harihar Saw presented his statements before the police on 26.4.2008 stating inter alia that he married his daughter Urmila Devi with Jwala Prasad Sao but he was informed on the date of his statements that his daughter committed suicide by hanging. On such information, when he arrived to the matrimonial home of Urmila Devi he found that the dead body of his daughter was hanging there. In course of interrogation with the neighbouring people the informant came to know that his daughter Urmila Devi was mentally and physically tortured by her husband and other in-laws and in same sequence after committing her murder the accused persons hanged her body with the help of rope. Genesis of the occurrence was that the deceased used to oppose the misconduct of her husband Jwala Prasad Saw who had illicit relation with the wife of his elder brother which caused altercation between the husband and wife in a routine manner. The informant had tried to resolve the disputes as well as the issues by convening a Panchayati in his village but the husband-petitioner Jwala Prasad Saw did not participate in the said Panchayati and ultimately occurrence was given effect to.

Offence was initially instituted under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code but the Investigating Officer after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner-husband Jwala Prasad Saw only and not against the petitioner No. 2 Batua Saw who happens to be the younger brother of the husband of the deceased. It is evident that the learned C.J.M. Palamau at Daltangonj after perusal of the case diary took cognizance of the offence under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the husband Jwala Prasad Saw and Dewar Batuwa Saw. After the case was committed, the learned Additional Sessions Judge FICIII Palamau at Daltonganj by the impugned order found it to be a fit case for framing charge under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, charge was framed against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections.

The learned Counsel assailed the order impugned on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while framing charge under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, did not mention the materials available on the record for his prima facie satisfaction that no case was made out against the petitioners under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code rather a case under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners fairly conceded that no petition for discharge was filed before the trial judge rather main grievance was that though the Investigating Officer had submitted charge sheet u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code but without reasons to be recorded the charge has been framed against the petitioners under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned A.P.P. Md. Hatim opposed the contention and submitted that as the materials are in the case records to frame the charge against the petitioners u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code , the impugned order does not call for interference in this Criminal Revision.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I find that no petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in the trial court either for discharge or for conversion of the charge into one under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it was of the subjective satisfaction of the trial court that he found it to be a prima facie case to draw the proceeding against the petitioners after framing of charge under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and such subjective satisfaction that has been recorded in the impugned order does not call for interference by this Court in Cr. Revision Therefore, I do not find any merit in this Criminal Revision. Accordingly, it is dismissed.