BADSHAH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.7.2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in ST No. 323 of 2004 whereby the petitioners' prayer for their discharge from the case under section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) ASSAILING the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without application of judicial mind to the materials on record and to the fact that even on the basis of the materials disclosed in the case diary submitted by the investigating officer, there is no cogent and reliable evidence for prosecuting the petitioners for the offences under sections 3048/1208/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel explains that though admittedly, the petitioners happen to be members of the matrimonial house of the deceased and are related to the husband of the deceased living in the same house, but merely because of their relationship these petitioners cannot be made liable for the suicide committed by the deceased who set herself on fire, that too in absence of any of the petitioners at the time of the occurrence. Learned counsel submits further that even as the case diary would reveal, the incident occurred in the early hours of morning on 29.9.2001 when the deceased was all alone in the house cooking food on a kerosene stove for her son when no other member of the matrimonial family was present in the house. The lady caught fire accidentally from the kerosene stove. On her alarms, neighbouring residents collected who promptly took her to the hospital. The police arrived at the hospital and before the police in presence of the doctors, compounders and other persons, the lady gave her statement that she had accidentally caught fire by the kerosene stove while cooking. Learned counsel adds further that this fact has been confirmed by the statement of the attending doctors, compounders and others in whose presence the victim had made her statement.Under such circumstance and in the light of such evidence, the petitioners could not have been held liable for the burn injuries sustained by the deceased and no charge -sheet could have been filed by the investigating officer recommending trial of the petitioners. It is also argued that the court below has failed to consider the above facts available in the case diary, and which go to prove the innocence of the petitioners.

(3.) FROM perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below has considered the submissions advanced by the petitioners which include the contention that at certain paragraphs of the case diary, statement of the victim as also those of the witnesses were recorded suggesting that the deceased sustained burn injuries accidentally and had also considered the submissions of the learned Prosecutor while going through the materials in the case diary wherein reference to the statement of the victim was made in the Bhojpuri language, which was also videographed, and wherein there is direct categorical allegation against the petitioners and the husband of the deceased of having cased the fatal burn injuries to her.