In a criminal revision against the rejection of a discharge application under Section 304B IPC, the High Court rejected the petitioner's claims regarding kinship, jurisdiction, and reliance on an agreement, upholding the trial court's order to proceed with the trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1196 of 2016
Nirmal Bhagat, son of Late Tej Narayan Bhagat, resident of Panjwara, PO & PS – Panjwara, District – Banka (Bihar)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … ... Opposite Party ---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ---
05/07.02.2017 Heard Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.
This application is directed against the order dated 08.08.2016 passed in S. T. No. 213 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd, Godda whereby and whereunder the application for discharge preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner happens to be the brother-in-law of the elderbrother of the husband of the deceased. It has been submitted that the petitioner cannot be termed to be a relative so as to attract an offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submits that an agreement was entered into in which the informant has never disputed the death of his daughter at Rajasthan and no allegation was made against the petitioner. It has also been stated that the death had occurred in Jaipur at Rajasthan and, therefore, the court at Godda does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Learned counsel submits that these facts have not been appreciated properly by the learned trial court before refusing to discharge the petitioner under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
It appears that the witnesses in course of investigation has stated that although the petitioner is the brother-in-law of the elder-brother of the husband of the deceased but he continued to remain in the matrimonial house of the deceased since eight to ten years prior to the
-2-
marriage of the deceased. The petitioner as it seems was involved in the demand of dowry and the subsequent torture upon the deceased. The petitioner in view of the close proximity and being related with the elder-brother of the husband of the deceased can be said to be a relative so as to attract an offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, although the death had occurred in Jaipur at Rajasthan but some part of the occurrence had taken place at various places at Jharkhand including the district of Godda and, therefore, the court at Godda does have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
The agreement which has been brought on record has much been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner but the investigation into the offence has definitely propelled the name of the petitioner as one of the perpetrators of the offence leading to the death of the deceased.
On proper appreciation of the evidence on record and the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the application preferred by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected on 08.08.2016, I am not inclined to entertain this application which is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is liable under Section 304B IPC as a relative of the deceased.
Whether the court at Godda has territorial jurisdiction to try the dowry death case.
Whether the learned trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nirmal Bhagat
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
