IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 169 of 2022
Pinku Bhuiya @ Pinku Kumar @Pinku Bhuiyan son of Srinivas
Bhuiya, resident of H. No. 11/1139, Nand Nagar, Kanu Bhatta,
Bhuiyadih, P.O. and P.S. Sidhgora, Town- Jamshedpur, District-East
Singhbhum (Jharkhand) Petitioner
… …
Versus
State of Jharkhand Opp. Parties
… …
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, A.P.P.
---
05/29.02.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This revision application has been filed by learned Special
Judge, FTC (CAW) at Jamshedpur, whereby the application filed by
the petitioner under section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
discharge has been rejected in connection with S.T. Case No.
191/2021 and M.C.A. No. 3596 of 2021 (arising out of Sidhgora P.S.
Case No. 166/2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 512/2021
registered for the offence under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal
Code pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, FTC (CAW) at
Jamshedpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned
order refusing to discharge the petitioner has submitted that the charge
sheet was submitted against the petitioner under section 304B of the
Indian Penal Code and the petitioner is husband of the deceased. The
learned counsel submits that the learned court below has not properly
considered the petition filed by the petitioner. He has also submitted
that in order to have any legal presumption there should be some
material on record.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite part-
State while opposing the prayer has submitted that at the stage of
discharge, only the materials in the case diary and only the prima facie
case is required to be seen and so far as the presumption in connection
with Section 304B of the IPC is concerned, the same is also to be seen
in the light of the Evidence Act. He submits that impugned order does
not call for any interference but the petitioner will have his
opportunity to take all the plea at the stage of trial. He submits that
2
these are essentially matters of trial and at the stage of discharge the
impugned order has been rightly passed.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the fact that as per the impugned order the death of the
wife of the petitioner had taken place within seven years of marriage
and the learned court below while considering the petition for
discharge has referred to the statements recorded in the case diary
wherein the informant in the re-statement has supported the
allegations contained in the written report and he had also supported
the allegation of demand of dowry and ill treatment and torture of his
daughter by the accused person. The cause of death as mentioned in
the post mortem report is asphyxia as a result of hanging.
6. Considering the nature of case and the materials discussed in
the impugned order , this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioner does not call for
any interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
7. Any observation made by this Court will not prejudice the case
of the petitioner during trial.
8. Let this order be communicated to the Court concerned through
FAX.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit