RAMAKANTA BEHERA @ SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the revisions are directed against the order dated 09.1.2007 passed in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court -II), Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.22/156 of 2006/2004 arraying the four petitioners as accused persons and summoning them to face trial along with the two accused persons who were facing trial before him for alleged commission of offences under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'I.P.C) as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short the 'D.P. Act). On the consent and request of the parties the revisions were taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

(2.) BHADRAK Town P.S. Case No.34 of 2004, out of which S.T. Case No.22/156 of 2006/2004 has arisen, was registered for commission of offences under Sections 498 -A, 307 and 326 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the deceased Aratis father, informant -P.W.2 Uma Sankar Das against (i) deceaseds husband Bibhuti Bhusan Sahu and (ii) deceaseds mother -in -law Malati Sahu, the two accused persons facing the trial as well as the present petitioners. Petitioner No.1 Sukadev Sahu in Criminal Revision No.217 of 2007 is deceaseds father -in -law. Petitioner No.2 Bharati @ Kuni Sahu in Criminal Revision No.217 of 2007 is his unmarried daughter. Petitioner No.2 Sunita Sahu @ Behera @ Sumati Sahu in Criminal Revision No.205 of 2007 is Sukadevs married daughter. Petitioner No.1 Ramakanta Behera in Criminal Revision No.205 of 2007 is her husband. In the FIR it was alleged that marriage between deceased and accused Bibhuti Bhusan Sahu was solemnized on 10.12.2000. One year after the marriage both the accused persons as well as the petitioner inflicted physical torture on the deceased in order to pressurize her to bring Rs.10,000/ -. Though the informant P.W.2 was apprised of the same by the deceased, he expressed his inability to pay the amount. The occurrence took place in the night of 5/6.3.2004 when informant P.W.2 and his wife P.W.1 had gone to the matrimonial house of the deceased. At about 2.30 A.M., when every body was asleep, informant P.W.2 woke up hearing shrieks raised by the deceased. Finding the deceased burning, he poured water over her. Others also arrived at the spot. The deceased was removed for treatment to hospital at Bhadrak and thereafter, at Cuttack. It appears that F.I.R. was lodged on 10.03.2004,. It further transpires that while under treatment the deceased died at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 13.03.2004. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the two accused persons only. Accordingly, trial commenced. After recording of the evidence of two witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2, they appear to have filed application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. in response to which the impugned order was passed.

(3.) LEARNED for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the informant, argued that Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate reference to any material on record other than evidence of the witnesses recorded in Court. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on the decisions of Honble Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1998) 15 OCR (SC) 476 and Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another, (1996) 11 OCR (SC) 139 as well as decisions of this Court in Narendra Das v. State of Orissa, 1987 (I) OLR 284, Panchdia Jaya v. State of Orissa, (1998) 15 OCR 145 and Md. Muzaffar Hussain Khan and Another v. State of Orissa and others, (1994) 7 OCR 804. It was further contended that in view of the provision under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the Court shall presume that a person accused of commission of offence under Section 304 -B of the I.P.C. had caused dowry death as alleged by the prosecution, and the burden lies on the accused to disprove the allegation levelled against him. In this context, reliance was placed on the decisions of Honble Supreme Court in Shamsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka, 2001(1) Supreme 348 and Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh and Another, 2006 AIR SCW 2129.