RAJENDRA RAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Cr. Revision application is directed against the order impugned dated 24.8.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC. IV, Bokaro in S.T. No. 363 of 2005 by which the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution Under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was rejected.

(2.) THE petitioner -complainant had lodged Complaint Case No. 62 of 2000 against the accused person including the opposite parties No. 3 to 5 herein for the alleged offence under Sections 323/498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint was sent to the police station by the order of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and accordingly, Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 67 of 2005 was registered under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. and the police after investigation submitted charge sheet for the alleged offence under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code only against the husband of the deceased Suresh Kumar Yadav whereas the members of the opposite party No. 3 to 5 were not sent up for trial. The informant -complainant i.e. the petitioner herein did not file any protest petition before the CJM against the charge sheet by which the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 were not sent up for trial. The accused Suresh Kumar Yadav was put on trial for the charge under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code and in course of trial the prosecution preferred an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. stating therein that all the prosecution witnesses produced and adduced on behalf of the prosecution had alleged the complicity of the members of the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 in perpetrating torture and causing dowry death of the deceased in furtherance of common intention. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the O.P. No. 3 and 5 are the elder brother and wife of the elder brother of the husband of the deceased respectively, whereas O.P. No. 4 is the younger brother of the husband. The prosecution witnesses were consistent that the O.P. No. 5 Fulwanti Devi poured kerosene oil on the body of the deceased whereas the husband accused lit match stick and inflamed her body. The other two viz. O.P. Nos. 3 and 4, who were standing there, did not prevent Suresh Kumar Yadav and Fulwanti Devi from litting the body of Mamta Kumari on fire and thereby, actively participated in commission of such offence. P.W.1 Ohm Prakash Yadav, P.W. 2 Nagendra Pd. Yadav P.W.3 Dhanesh Kumar Prasad P.W.4 Rekha Devi and P.W.5 Barheshwar Prasad were consistent in their testimony with respect to alleged complicity of opposite parties Nos

(3.) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the present Cr. Revision and the grounds set forth assailing the order impugned dated 24.8.2007 passed by the trial Judge, I find it relevant to mention that the occurrence as alleged took place on 26.1.2005 and daughter of the complainant Mamta Kumari died at Bokaro general hospital on 27.1.2005, nevertheless, the complainant (informant -petitioner) testified that he had put his signature on the statement of his son -in -law Suresh Kumar Yadav in presence of the Police Officer and the Doctor attending the patient deceased and therefore he cannot back out from his signature alleging that his signature was obtained on a blank paper expressing his agreement with the statement of Suresh Kumar Yadav. The complainant is equally silent as to what prevented him to institute an independent case before the concerned police station if dowry death was committed to her daughter by the accused persons but instead, he filed a complaint petition after inordinate and unexplained delay on