TAPAN KUMAR MALLICK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code' for short) is directed against the order dated 5.9.1991 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in S.T. No. 326 of 1989 whereby the charges under Section 304B and alternative charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed against the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is an accused in Putki P.S. Case No. 67 of 1988, registered under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the fardbeyan of Gautam Chandra Thakur. The prosecution story is that one Basan Millick, aged 20 years, was married with the petitioner on 19.6.1988. After three months of the marriage she started living with the petitioner at Moonidih. It was alleged by the informant that on 6.10.1988 on the occasion of Jitia, the petitioner demanded Rs. 60,000/ and furniture from the informant and he said that if the same is not given, the consequences would be bad. It was further alleged that when the informant visited the house of the petitioner on the occasion of Dusera for taking his daughter to his place, the petitioner refused to allow her to go with the informant unless the demand is fulfilled. On 17.10.1988 one Khemlal Mahato informed the informant that there has been an incident with his daughter and he was called immediately Therefore on reaching Moonidih the informant learnt that his daughter died because of born. He also found that preparation of cremation was done. The informant thereafter fell unconscious. The informant, therefore, expressed his suspicion based on the information that his daughter had not committed suicide, but the petitioner had set fire as the dowry demand was not fulfilled. The court below after recording the evidence and after perusal of the other documents framed charges under Section 304B and in the alternative under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) BEFORE appreciating the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be useful to look into the relevant provision of law with regard to framing of charge.