SAHDEO RAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for quashing the order 24.9.2004 passed in Sessions Case No. 88 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 11, Deoghar summoned the petitioner under Sec.319, Cr PC.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that the informant Kalawati Devi gave a written report in Palazori police station alleging therein that she has got her daughter Ful Kumari married with Sahdeo Rai, the petitioner about three years ago and on 30.11.2003 at about 10.00 a.m. she got information from one Mani Rai of village Barmasiya that her daughter Ful Kumari had called her, on getting this information at about 12.30 p.m. she along with her Bhaisur Paiter Rai and villager Tulo Rai went to village Barmasiya where she saw dead body of her daughter in burnt condition which was lying in her sasural.. On inquiry she came to know that her daughter 's, husband Sahdeo Rai and Bhaisur Kamdeo Rai have burnt her daughter to death. The cause of death is attributed to the fact that on the last occasion of Dussehra when she had gone to Barmasiya, her daughter had told her that her husband Sahdeo Rai and Bhaisur Kamdeo Rai were demanding motorcycle by way of dowry and if the demand is not fulfiled, then she may be killed. On the basis of this fardbeyan dated 30.11.2003, a case under Section 304(B)/ 34, Indian Penal Code was instituted against the petitioner and Kamdeo Rai. The police took up investigation and submitted charge -sheet against Kamdeo Rai only but did not send up this petitioner for trial, but the police had submitted charge -sheet under Sec.306, Indian Penal Code but charge was framed under Sec.304(B) against Kamdeo Rai only. Cognizance in this case was taken against Kamdeo Rai only and charge was also framed against Kamdeo Rai and in course of trial, witnesses were examined and at the fag end of trial, before delivery of judgment, the learned Court below passed an order holding that this petitioner who is husband of the deceased Ful Kumari is equally responsible and he has played equal role in the alleged killing of Ful Kumari and directed to issue summon against this petitioner under Sec.319, Cr PC separating trial of this petitioner from the other.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned J.C. to G.P. II submitted that the Court had itself come to a finding that the petitioner has played equal role and he is equally responsible for the same. Hence, stage of trial cannot be considered and even after conclusion of trial the said person can be summoned under Section 319, Cr PC. In this connection, reliance was placed upon - - - - . Reliance was further placed upon - - - - .