MAMTAZ BIBI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jannati Bibi was married with petitioner no. 2 Motiur Rahaman @ Md. Matiar Rahman on 25th of June, 2008 as per Muslim Law and Customs. She died on 23rd of September, 2011. She was found lying dead outside the Emergency Department of Rampurhat Hospital by her father Md. Asad Ali Opposite Party no. 2. He lodged a complaint against mother-in-law Mamtaz Bibi @ Mamtaz Begum petitioner no. 1, husband Motiur Rahaman @ Md. Matiar Rahaman petitioiner no. 2, Jahangir Seikh @ Md. Jahangir Hossain petitioner no. 3, and Rahul Amin @ Rahul Amin Mondal petitioner no. 4. It was further stated that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty.

(2.) On the basis of the complaint made by the father of the deceased, a formal FIR being no. 170 of 2011 dated 27th September, 2011 under Sections 498- A/304B was registered at Rampurhat police station. The above-said FIR was investigated, charge-sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was entrusted for trial to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Rampurhat. The Court, on 18th of December, 2012, charged petitioners firstly for offence under Sections 498-A/34 IPC. Second charge was framed for offence under Section 306 IPC, in alternative third charge was framed for offence under Section 304-B read with 34 IPC, and alternative fourth charge was framed for offence under Section 302/34 IPC, and lastly and fifthly an additional charge was framed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) In the present petition filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., order dated 18th December, 2012 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Rampurhat, has been assailed on the ground that prosecution has failed to state definite case as to what offence has been committed by the accused. Therefore, grave error has been committed, so far alternative charges for offence under Sections 306/304-B and 302 I.P.C. had been drawn. A grievance has also been made that prosecution is groping in dark and is chasing a wild goose. It has been stated by the counsel that prosecution must state definite case so that accused is able to formulate a strategy and tenor of cross-examination and must be provided an adequate opportunity to take meaningful defence.