Sanjit Kumar Sinha and Others vs State of Jharkhand and Another

Deoki Nandan Prasad

This Revision application is directed against the order dated 9.9.2002, whereby the whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad rejected the petition for discharge is connection with Dhanbad PS case No. 71 of 1999 (Sessions Trial NO. 355 of 2002).

The prosecution case in brief as alleged that one Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha lodged an FIR alleging therein that his daughter Vidya Sinha alias Renu was married with accused Santosh Kumar Sinha in the year 1993. After some time the accused persons including the petitioners started demanding money and due to non-fulfillment of the demand they started torturing his daughter. Thereafter the informant somehow or other paid a sum of Rs. 38,000/- to Santosh Kumar Sinha on the pretext of employment. Thereafter, for some time his daughter remained peaceful but later on again the accused persons started torturing his daughter and demanding money. His daughter also written a letter describing all the facts. His daughter was also driven away from the house because of non fulfillment of the demand and thereafter she started residing with her husband, Santosh Kumar Sinha at Dhanbad. The informant was informed on 23.1.1999 that his daughter was done to death and thereafter the Informant alongwith others rushed to the spot and found his daughter dead with burn injury.

Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. Police investigated into the case and submitted chargesheet.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Court below committed error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for discharge as there is no direct or specific evidence collected against the petitioners for their involvement as they are residing at Patna and they were not present at the place of occurrence. It is further argued that the Dy. Supdt. of Police, who supervised the case also held that there is no case made out against the petitioners as well as FIR has been lodged after delay of three days and therefore there is no material for framing charge against the petitioners.

On the other hand, the learned APP contended before me that there is no illegality in the order impugned as the Court below rightly passed the order finding sufficient materials/grounds for framing charge against the petitioners as there is a specific allegation against the petitioners as well for torturing the deceased before her death as well as there was a demand of dowry from the side of the accused persons.

Perused the Diary. Apparently, there is a specific allegation against the accused persons including the petitioners for demand of money and also torturing the deceased before her death. It is an admitted position that the deceased was married with Santosh Kumar Sinha in the year 1993 and deceased alongwith her husband were residing at the relevant time at Patna alongwith '' the petitioners. The deceased also written a letter in the name of her father stating about the story of torture, which is dated 30.5.1996 (vide para-34 of the diary). The witnesses, namely, Santosh Kumar, Urmila Devi, Krishna Nandan Prasad and Dharambeer Prasad (vide para-10, 11, 21 and 22) have consistently supported the allegation as made in the FIR. It is not disputed that the deceased was residing with her husband at Patna alongwith petitioners as well after her marriage and she was shifted to Dhanbad only when her husband joined services there and there is a specific and direct allegation about demand of dowry and torturing the deceased at Patna at the hands of the petitioners. Moreover, the plea of alibi taken by the petitioners can be considered thoroughly at the time of trial itself.

At this stage, there appears sufficient material for framing of charge against the petitioners. It is well settled that the charge can even be framed on the materials on record capable of inferring strong suspicion about the commission of offence. Thus, I find that the Court below has rightly passed the order rejecting the prayer of discharge.

In the result, I do not find any merit in this application, which is dismissed.