D.N.PRASAD,J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision has arisen out of an order dated 15.4.1996 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Cr. Revision No. 58 of 1995 by which he has set aside the order dated 1.9.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj in G.R. No. 660 of 1988 whereby the learned Magistrate had refused to amend the charges already framed against the petitioners.
(2.) SHORT case of the prosecution as alleged in the FIR is that the daughter of the informant Sahnaz Begaum was married in the year 1985 with Shakilur Rahman Khan. After sometime, she was being ill -treated by her in -laws. Inspite of the fact that the informant had given sufficient dowry being clothes and ornaments worth Rs. 50,000/ -. The husband of his daughter was demanding one Rajdoot Motor Cycle, which could not be given. On 22.4.1988 at about 7 p.m. the husband of his daughter took heraway from his place. Inspite of the fact that he did not want to send her and the husband was also threatening for divorce. Due to non -fulfilment of the demand, his daughter was assaulted. On 30.4.1988 at about 10.30 p.m. some persons came to his house and told him that his daughter is missing. The informant along with others rushed to the village of her sasural and found the dead body of his daughter lying in the well. Accordingly the first information report was lodged against the accused persons/petitioners for the offence under Sections 302/201 /34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge - sheet under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken and thereafter charge was framed under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. No any objection was raised from the side of the opposite party No. 2 that this case comes under the purview of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. All the witnesses have been examined in the Court below and the case was fixed, for judgment after hearing argument. But a petition was filed from the side of the opposite party No. 2 stating therein that the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is made out in this case and as such Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code may be added. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer by order dated 1.9.1995 against which criminal revision was preferred. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision application by the order impugned and directed the Magistrate that the case may be committed to the Court of Sessions.
(3.) ON being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners/accused persons preferred this revision application on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed error in passing the order impugned as this criminal case is pending since 1988 and the witnesses were also examined during trial but no any objection wasraised at any point of time. It is also claimed that the police investigated into the case and submitted charge -sheet under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code only as well as the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.;