MALTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners who happen to be parents-in-law, sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother-in-law (Dewar) of the informant have filed this application for quashing of the order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 221 of 2006, arising out of Rahui (Bhagan Bigha) P.S. Case No. 190 of 2003 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for their discharge has been rejected.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that one Rinku Devi gave her fardbeyan before the Officer Incharge of the said Police Station at about 10.30 P.M. on 22.12.2003 inter alia alleging that her marriage was solemnized with Shiv Shankar Prasad in June that year whereat a sum of Rs. 2,00,000.00 was given as dowry and the initial period after marriage in the marital home was full of bliss. However, about two months prior to the date of occurrence the petitioners started demanding a further lac of rupees and also started torturing her for the same which was objected to by the husband. It is alleged that on the previous day (22.12.2003) at around 2 P.M. the petitioners in an effort to kill her, wanted to administer poison which was aborted by the husband who saved her life by locking her in a room whereafter the accused persons forcibly administered poison to the husband. She claims to have seen her husband being administered poison through the window whereafter she managed to escape from the room and fled to her parental home where she learnt that her husband had been rushed to the clinic of Dr. K.P. Sinha at Mogalkuan. It is stated that she with her family members made attempts to locate her husband but without any success and even the doctor refused to divulge any information about him. It was claimed that the four petitioners had killed the husband by administering poison as he had opposed their demand for dowry. It appears that after due investigation the police submitted a final form but the learned Magistrate differed with the same and took cognizance under Ss. 302/328 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are quite innocent, have committed no offence and have been falsely implicated in the instant case due to enmity and land dispute. It was also sought to be submitted that the story as mooted in the fardbeyan was highly improbable as no prudent person could kill his own son/brother. The learned counsel further sought to point out that the several witnesses examined by the police have categorically stated that the relationship between the deceased and the informant was not cordial as a result whereof the husband had consumed poison. In this connection, the learned counsel with reference to paragraph-4 of the case diary sought to point out that it was apparent therefrom that as soon the husband was admitted in the clinic of the Doctor the informant left him and went to her parental home with another person on a scooter. He also sought to refer to paragraphs-26, 27, 43 to 45, 57 and 58 of the case diary where the witnesses have stated that it was due to the land dispute between the deceased and the informant that the deceased had consumed poison. It was also sought to be pointed out that many other witnesses had stated before the police that the informant had remained in her marital home for a period of one month only whereafter she had left the same as she was not willing to live with her husband and it was on this account that the police had submitted a final form.