RAJBANSHI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is one of the F.I.R. named accused of Sessions Trial No. 138 of 2005, arising out of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 52 of 2004 registered under Section 304B/34 I.P.C. has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 23.12.2005 passed therein by learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. Ill, Vaishali at Hajipur, whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge from the case under Section 227 Cr.P.C. According to the fardbeyan of one Shambhu Prasad Singh given at about 11.30 A.M. on 26.5.2004, the marriage of his daughter, Sweety Devi, was solemnized with one Shram Singh in the year 1999 and thereafter Sweety lived in her sasural for about 8 months. It is alleged that when the informant went to meet his daughter, she woefully complained of her in -laws, at the instigation of the present petitioner, demanding Rs. 50,000/ - as dowry and when she expressed the inability of paying such huge amount, she would be tied to the cot and abused and assaulted mercilessly. It is said that when the informant met the in -laws of his daughter and reiterated his inability to pay the demanded amount, he was told to take away his daughter as there was no place for her in the sasural whereupon he brought back his daughter with him and since then for 3 years she lived with him. Then in the year 2003 on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter's step -dewar, her husband came over and forcibly took her back to the sasural to avoid social criticism. It is said that ever since the daughter's departure he brooked in his mind a premonition of some untoward incident happening to his daughter. It is said that early that morning he received news that his daughter had been killed by her in -laws on the preceding night by administering poison whereupon he went to the sasural and found the police present and the dead body of his daughter and gave his fardbeyan suspecting the evil designs of the in -laws of his daughter and the present petitioner who unfortunately was his own sarhu and the maternal uncle of the husband of the deceased.

(2.) ASSAILING the impugned order it was contended that his petition for discharge had been rejected in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind more so when there was nothing in the case diary or records to indicate his involvement in the demand for dowry or the alleged administration of poison and that he apart from living in another village would not fall within the category of "in -laws". While denying the allegations of demanding dowry and administration of poison or of Sweety being subjected to torture for non -fulfilment of dowry demand, it was submitted that the petitioner had been dragged in only because he had been instrumental in arranging the marriage. The further submission was that the doctor holding the post mortem of Sweety did not find any ante mortem injury and could not give any definite opinion in respect of the cause of death which could be ascertained from the viscera report which was not available. Reference was also made to certain paragraphs of the case diary to show that many of the witnesses had denied of any dowry ever having been demanded.

(3.) NOW to the merits. The petitioner is named in the fardbeyan of instigating the in -laws of Sweety Devi to make a demand for dowry and to torture her for non -fulfilment thereof as also to kill her by administering poison. The viscera report available in the case diary indicates the presence of "thimet", an organo -phosphorous pesticide which is widely used in agriculture for killing pests and is highly poisonous, in the decomposed tissues of the viscera.