MIR MASUK ALLI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 22-1-2013 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in S.T. Case No. 432/2011 directing framing of additional charges under Sections 304-B, IPC and 4 of D.P. Act against the petitioners is challenged in this Criminal Revision.

(2.) The petitioners were facing trial in the sessions case for charges under Secs. 498-A, 302, 406 and 34 of IPC, for which Police had filed charge-sheet even though FIR was lodged for commission of offences under those Sections along with Sections 304-B, IPC and 4 of D.P Act. The Investigating Officer however did not submit charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 304-B, IPC and 4 of D.P Act. At the stage of argument in the Sessions case, a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 216, Cr. PC. for addition of charges under Sections 304-B, IPC and 4 of D.P. Act. The impugned order has been passed accepting the prayer of the prosecutor and directing for addition of charges under Sections 304-B. IPC and 4 of D.P. Act by the Court below on the basis of statements given by PWs. 1 & 9, the father and mother of the deceased respectively.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the statements of PWs. 1 and 9, which were taken into consideration by the Court below, only relate to a bald statement by them to the effect that three months before the death, the deceased had made a phone call to her mother stating that the accused persons were demanding a sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs from her and that she was not being provided with food. It is also his submission that FIR was lodged by PW. 1 on 5-6-2011, i.e. one day after the death of the tim though on the previous date, i.e. on the date of death of the victim, PWs. 1 and -have furnished their opinion in the inquest report that the death of the deceased occurred due to accidental burn while cooking food It is also his submission that the main ingre dient of the offence under Section 304-B. IPC that the deceased was subjected to cruelr soon before her death on the ground mand of dowry is wanting as there is aboso lutely no evidence in support there therefore, framing of additional charges is bad in law.