MANSUR ALAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5.

(2.) This application is directed against the order, dated 15.02.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. Case No. 71 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the prosecution u/S. 319, Cr.P.C., had been rejected.

(3.) It has been submitted by Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 are being sought to be prosecuted for an offence u/S. 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the informant P.W.6 in course of trial had taken the name of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 and even on the testimony of a single witness the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 could have been proceeded against. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of such contention has referred to an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tapas Das alias Bhambal v. State of West Bengal, 2016 ACR 472. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the post-mortem report reveals that the death was prior to 72 hours from the post-mortem of the victim which would further indicate the involvement of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 but the informant was never informed about the incident of his daughter having been done to death by the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 along with the husband of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to his Interlocutory Application No. 2956 of 2017 which contains the judgment passed in S.T. Case No. 71 of 2015 in which the husband of the deceased was convicted. Learned counsel has referred to the evidence of P.W.6 which has been noted in paragraph 11 of the said judgment and it has once again been reiterated that the evidence of P.W.6 is sufficient to put the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 to face trial as specific allegations have been levelled against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 in committing the dowry death of the deceased. It has thus been submitted that these facts having not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court the impugned order dated 15.02.2017 deserves to be quashed and set aside.