Thulu Bhandari vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Heard Mr. Srikant Swaroop, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party State.

Heard Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4.

This Criminal Revision petition has been filed for the following relief:

“That this criminal revision is directed against the order / judgment dated 25th day of September, 2000 passed by Md. Jaffar, Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Session Case No.39 of 1999 (arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No.29 of 1998) whereby and whereunder the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamtara has been pleased to pass an order of acquittal in favour of opposite party no.2, 3 and 4 and further pleased to observe that the informant to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the opposite party no.2, 3 and 4 within a month from today.”

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was recorded in order dated 02.12.2021 and the matter was placed today for argument of the opposite parties as recorded in order dated 02.12.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present revision application has been filed by the informant of the case against the judgment of acquittal. He submits that the present revision has been filed as the State did not file any acquittal appeal and the informant at the relevant point of time had no remedy except to file revision application. He further submits that the informant of the case had stated in the F.I.R. as well as in his deposition that the marriage had taken place five years ago and his sister had died in her matrimonial house and there was smell of kerosene oil from the remnant part of blouse on the person of the deceased. He submits that the fact that the marriage had taken place only five years ago, has been totally ignored by the learned trial court while acquitting the opposite parties of the present case and the learned trial court has held that mere proof of demand of dowry and torture was not sufficient to hold the opposite party Nos.-2 to 4 guilty of the offence as the prosecution has not been able to prove that the opposite party No.-2 to 4 had burnt the sister of the informant. The learned counsel also submits that the informant in his depositing has stated that the smell of kerosene oil was coming out of deceased body and her garments and this fact was also supported by the post-mortem report. The learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has further directed the informant of the case to pay the compensation to the accused persons amounting to Rs. 5,000/-. He submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is ex-facie perverse and gross injustice has been done in the present case and accordingly, the impugned judgment be set-aside and the matter be remitted to the learned court below for fresh trial. He submits that the deceased died in her matrimonial home.

Learned counsel for the opposite parties during the course of argument have not been able to show anything from the impugned order which mentions about the period from the marriage within which the death of the victim had occurred. They submit that at best this matter can be remanded to the learned court below and this Court in revisional jurisdiction may not re-appreciate the evidences and convict the accused persons.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the lower court records, this Court finds that there is evidence of the informant (P.W.7) of the case that marriage had taken place 5 years before. It further appears from the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein specific query was raised that the victim has expired within 7 years of marriage on account of burn injuries to which the accused persons had denied. Upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned court below, this Court finds that this aspect of the matter that the accused has been said to have expired within the period of 7 years of marriage has not at all been considered by the learned court below. Non-consideration of this aspect of the matter has a serious bearing in view of the provisions of Section 304 B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 113 B of Indian Evidence Act. This Court is of the considered view that having not taken into consideration that the period of marriage within which the victim has expired due to burn injury in her matrimonial home, the impugned judgments passed by the court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamtara on 25th of September, 2000 in Sessions Case No.39 of 1999 is perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, the judgment dated 25.09.2000 passed in Session Case No. 39 of 1999 arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No.29 of 1998 by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law.

This petition is accordingly allowed.

The parties are directed to appear before the learned court below on 25th April, 2022.

Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the learned court below.

Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX/E-mail.