RAMA SHARMA Vs. PINKI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Rama Sharma wife of Brijbhushan Sharma (accused) has moved this Court in revision against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge IX, Patna, dt. 7-7-87 whereby he has rejected the application of the State for the exercise of the power under S.319, Cr. P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for summoning Ratan Devi and Pinki Sharma, opposite parties, as accused who have already been discharged by the learned Sessions Judge dt. 18-12-85 saying that no charges could be framed against them.

(2.) It appears that a complaint was filed by Smt. Rama Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the ('Complainant') before the learned C.J.M., Patna, saying that she was married to Brijbhushan Sharma, accused No. 5, on 21-2-79 and various valuable articles as detailed in the complaint petition were given to her by way of gift and that both lived a peaceful life for about 4 months. Thereafter the accused namely Dharam Pal Sharma (father-in-law), Ratan Devi (mother-in-law), Pinki Devi (wife of the elder brother of the husband), Deobrat Sharma (elder brother of the husband) and Brijbhushan Sharma (the husband himself) started to extract money from her and pressed her to bring money from her widowed mother. She brought heavy amounts four or five times but ultimately out of annoyance her mother refused to pay anymore. Dharam Pal and Deobrat started pressing the informant to indulge in flesh trade by giving allurement. Brijbhushan, the husband, also pressed her to indulge in the immoral acts. Pinki Sharma, a woman of has character and having illicit connection with the complainants' father-in-law Dharam Pal continued in flesh trading and earns handsome money. On her refusal to indulge in the flesh trade the informant was ill treated by the accused person and they began to assault and forced her to go out of the house and they also snatched her ornaments. On various dates she was assaulted. On 18-8-81 at about 10 p.m. Ratan Devi and Pinki Sharma closed the door from inside at the instance of other accused and then Brijbhushan Sharma sprinkled kerosene oil over the informant's body and he tried to lit the fire but her hue and cry attracted the people of the mohalla and then she was saved. It was again on 8-10-81 at about 11 p.m. that she was assaulted by all the accused with fists and slaps bitterly and even her two children were snatched from her for which she lodged an information at the police station, but by the time the police came the accused had left the house. Again on 5-1-82 at about 9.30 p.m. she was assaulted by the accused and she was turned out of the house, but on the intervention of the police she could go back to her house. It was on 14-1-82 at about 2 a.m. in the night that the accused got her seated in a Taxi but when commotion prevailed in the house her life was saved. On 12-2-82 she was again assaulted and Deobrat Sharma closed her mouth and got her fallen down in a room and then Brijbhushan Sharma started pressing her neck to kill her but it was on the intervention of the neighbours again that her life was saved. Again the accused arranged to kill her on 15-2-82 but somehow she informed the City Superintendent of Police whereupon the police arrived and found the facts correct but the police did not register any case. Again on 25-2-82 at about 11.30 p.m. the accused assaulted her and Brijbhushan Sharma forced her to write a paper that she was leaving the house on her own accord. Again on 24-5-82 at about 7 p.m. Deobrat Sharma and Pinki Devi sprinkled hot water on the complainant in order to kill her but she did not die, though she was hospitalised for about 7 days. Dharam Pal had also raped Malti Devi, a maid servant of the house on 9-5-82 which was also complained of and it had also caused annoyance to the accused.

(3.) The learned C.J.M., Patna, sent the said complaint to the Gandhi Maidan Police Station where it was instituted on 18-6-82 as Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 540 of 1982 under Ss.307, 376, I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was investigated and then charge-sheet was submitted under the said Sections against the said five accused persons. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, being Session Trial No. 279/84.