This Court dismissed a petition challenging an order refusing discharge for offences under sections 304 B/34 IPC regarding dowry death. The Single Judge found strong suspicion based on case diary evidence.
Petition dismissed; liberty granted to raise points at charge framing.
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.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11799 of 2011 (2) dt.16-07-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.11799 of 2011
====================================================== 1. Ram Raj Yadav Son of Late Jawahar Yadav, Resident Of Village - Garhwa Simra, P.S. - Simra, District - Aurangabad. 2. Bharat Yadav Son of Ram Raj Yadav, Resident of Village - Garhwa Simra, P.S. - Simra, District - Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Arvind Yadav Son of Naresh Yadav, Resident of Village -Nakti, P.S. - Deo, Distt. - Aurangabad. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate and Meena Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Nr. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER
2 16-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 22.2.2011 by which the court below has refused to discharge the petitioner for offences under sections 304 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The counsel for the petitioners submits that in paragraph 20 of the case diary it has been recorded by the Police that the victim herself mentioned about consuming the poison because her brother was not allowed to meet her though he had come to her place. The Court has disbelieved the theory. The charge-sheet was filed under section 306 I.P.C. and the court
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11799 of 2011 (2) dt.16-07-2012
below has taken cognizance under section 304 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter on the basis of different paragraphs of case diary, the court below has refused to discharge the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioners further submits that although the informant was present during the occurrence and the F.I.R. was lodged after much delay.
The submission of the petitioner was contradicted by the counsel for the State.
Having considered the rival contention of the parties, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned as the court below has perused the different paragraphs of the case diary and has found that there is a strong suspicion for offences under sections 304 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to raise all the points before at the time of framing of charge.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
Mahesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order refusing to discharge the petitioner for offences under sections 304 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code should be quashed.
Whether the suspicion of offence stands despite the victim's alleged claim of self-administered poison.
Ram Raj Yadav
Bharat Yadav
The State Of Bihar
Arvind Yadav
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
