INDRANI GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge by his order dated 30th June, 2008 passed in ST Case No. 89/2008 rejected the petition of the two petitioners dated 15th May, 2008 for discharge from the case and the present application has been taken out under section 397/401 read with section 482 Cr. PC to challenge the legality of the said order. One Rupa Mallick, 15 years old, a resident of 19/1, Gopal Banerjee Lane under P.S. Howrah lodged an FIR with the Howrah P.S. being Howrah P.S. Case No. 3 dated 3rd January, 2008 alleging that at 9 p.m. on the preceding day namely, 2nd January, 2008 her sister Dipa Mallick returned from her maternal uncle's house. Half an hour thereafter the petitioner No. 2 who resides at 19/1, Gopal Banerjee Lane, her daughter-in-law Indrani Ghosh, the petitioner No. 1 and certain other persons entered into her house and dragged Oipa from the room by catching hold of her hand and started assaulting her at random by fists and blows. The two petitioners stated that Dipa had committed theft from their house of money and valuable articles. They further addressed Dipa, saying you committed theft, how can you see your face' and then they departed. Her sister started weeping. Her mother returned from work and learnt of the incident and asked her sister not to go to the house of the petitioners. Then at the early hours of the day at 4 a.m. on 3rd January, 2008 Dipa set fire to her body.

(2.) When the FIR was registered under section 448/323/109/34 of the IPC, the victim was alive did not died. The victim died on 9th January, 2008. After completion of investigation the police submitted chargesheet against the petitioners under section 448/323/306/109/34 of the IPC. As said above, a petition was filed by the petitioners praying for discharge from the case on the ground that the materials collected during investigation did not attract the provisions of section 306 of the IPC. Learned Trial Court rejected the prayer holding that the prima facie case was made out and framed charges and fixed dates of trial.

(3.) It is the order dated 30th June, 2008 which is challenged in this application.