The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1342 of 2023 1. Ranjit Modi, aged about 30 yrs. S/o Sahdeo Modi, 2. Sahadeo Modi, aged about 65 yrs. S/o Late Kashi Modi, 3. Chinta Devi, aged about 55 yrs., W/o Sahdeo Modi, 4. Mina Devi @ Minu Burnwal, aged about 45 yrs. W/o Radhe Modi 5. Radhe Modi @ Radhe Devi @ Radhe Shyam Burnwal, aged about 55 yrs. S/o Late Kashi Modi 6. Sadanand Modi @ Burnwal @ Barnwal aged about 28 yrs S/o Sri Prakash Modi 7. Shiv Shankar Modi@ Shiv Shankar Barnwal @ Barnwal aged about 30 yrs, S/o Sri Subhash Modi, 8. Vijay Modi @ Bijay Barnwal @ Barnwal aged about 40 yrs S/o Late Tilak Modi. Sl. No.1 to 8 Labour Hatt, Garrage More, P.O. Durgapur, P.S. Coke Oven, Dist. Bardhman (West Bengal) 9. Pradeep Modi @ Indrajit Modi @ Pradip Modi aged about 46 yrs.
Legal Reasoning
statements of the witnesses was of the view that there was prima facie material available on record to frame charges and accordingly, the petition for discharge has been rejected. 8. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that learned court has already considered the materials and the arguments advanced by the petitioners is essentially a matter of defence. Further the charge has already been framed, the stage has changed and at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no material to 3 proceed against the petitioners. Consequently, the present revision is hereby dismissed. 9. However, observations made in this order and dismissal of this case will not prejudice either party in the trial. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email. Saurav (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4
Arguments
S/o Sri Daso Modi 10. Neelu Devi @ Nilu Devi @ Milu Devi aged about 39 yrs. W/o Pradeep Modi, D/o Shahdeo Modi Sl No.9 to 10 Rajdhanwar Near Main Road, Bajrangbali Chowk, P.O. & P.S. Rajdhanwar, Dist. Giridih Versus … … Petitioners The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Informant For the State --- : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, Advocate --- 08/02.07.2024 This Criminal Revision has been filed for the following relief: “That by way of this instant application the petitioners beg to challenge the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 12.9.2023 passed by the Ld. Court of Sri Rajni Kant Pathak, Addl. Session Judge – III, Dhanbad in Saraidhela P.S. Case No.4 of 2017 corresponding to S.T. Case No.27/2023 whereby and whereunder the Ld. Trial Court has been pleased to dismiss discharge application preferred by the petitioners.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is an admitted position that the date of marriage is 10.06.2009 and the date of death of the lady is 18.04.2016 and the complaint was filed on 13.12.2016 and by the impugned order, the prayer for discharge has been rejected. The charge sheet was filed for offence under sections 341,323, 342, 380, 458, 427, 304B, 504 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel has submitted that it is the case of normal death in view of the fact that the deceased had died in a hospital and was taken from one hospital to another including hospitals treating cancer. However, admittedly no post mortem of the deceased was conducted. He has submitted that the basic ingredient for offence under section 304 B is not attracted in view of the fact that the death was a normal death and there was no cruelty soon before the death with regard to the demand of dowry. By referring to the complaint petition, he submits that primarily the grievance of the complainant was that the petitioners did not share the money for the treatment of the deceased and they took away the children of the deceased. The learned counsel has submitted that merely because the death had occurred within 7 years of marriage, the same does not automatically mean that the ingredients of section 304B are attracted. He submits that the impugned order refusing to discharge is fit to be set aside as there is no material against the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant while opposing the prayer has informed this Court that charge has already been framed and the evidence is to commence and the stage having changed, no relief be granted to the petitioners. She has also submitted that upon reading of the complaint petition which was sent for investigation by police, there is enough material to show that the deceased was treated in such a manner that she ultimately fell ill. She was not provided with food and medicine, and her condition worsened due to a lack of sufficient blood in her body. When her in-laws refused to arrange for treatment, she was taken to the hospital, where she died. She submits that there is also allegation regarding demand of dowry and ingredients of other sections in which charge sheet has been filed are also present in the case. She submits that it is not a case that there 2 is no material against the petitioners. The arguments advanced by the petitioners are essentially arguments of defence. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is sufficient material available in the records from the investigation; the statements of witnesses have been recorded and, therefore, no case for discharge is made out. The impugned order does not call for any interference. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the death had taken place within 7 years of marriage and further no post mortem was conducted of the deceased and accordingly, the exact cause of death may not be available. 7. This Court further finds that as per the complaint, there are allegations regarding demand of dowry followed by torture assault and the complaint also indicates that the in-laws of the deceased did not provide her appropriate food and treatment and the conditions of the lady deteriorated which led to situation that she suffered from less blood in her body. The statements of the witnesses have been recorded during investigation and it has come that the parents of the deceased took up the steps for her treatment only when she called upon them stating that her in-laws were not interested in her treatment and that if she is not treated, she would die. There are other allegations also, in the complaint and the materials collected during investigation and ultimately the charge sheet was filed not only under section 304B but also other sections of Indian Penal Code. This Court is of the view that the learned court after considering the materials on record and the