MRITYUNJAY DAS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Revision Application filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), the sole petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.05.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge- III, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 436 of 2012 arising out of Golmuri (Burma Mines) P.S. Case No.162 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code for his discharge, has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner has been made accused in Golmuri (Burma Mines) P.S. Case No.162 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 2045 of 2012 for the offence under Section 304(B)/Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the deceased Anita Das, the daughter of the informant Haldhar Das, was married with this petitioner on 28.01.2007 according to Hindu Custom and Rituals and in the marriage, cash, ornaments and utensils were given to him and though the conjugal life passed peacefully for the next two years and a daughter was born out of the said wedlock but after almost completion of two years, this petitioner and her in-laws started torturing the deceased Anita Das for demand of more dowry and on several occasions, she was subjected to physical assault at the hands of this petitioner and in-laws and even they intended to kill her. On 24.07.2012, one Jitendra, who happens to be the elder brother of sonin-law of the informant, informed him on phone that his daughter Anita Das has committed suicide by hanging.

(3.) It appears that on the basis of the written application of the informant, aforesaid case was lodged under Section 304(B)/34 of I.P.C. but after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against this petitioner only under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The court below took cognizance of the offence and it was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial whereafter a petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code for his discharge, which was rejected by the order impugned dated 13.05.2013 as indicated above holding that there is sufficient materials in the case dairy to proceed against the accused-petitioner.