- (1.) 2/ 09.5.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State as also learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, who has appeared through vakalatnama.
(2.) PETITIONERS have challenged the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bokaro, in S.T No. 12 of 2007, arising out of B.S.City (Sector-XII) P.S Case No. 197 of 2006 corresponding to G.R No. 774 of 2006, whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioners have been summoned to face the trial along-with other co-accused facing the trial. The petitioners had been made accused in B.S.City (Sector-XII) P.S Case No. 197 of 2006 corresponding to G.R No. 774 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners are the elder brother and the wife of elder brother of the husband of the deceased and they have been named in the F.I.R with the allegation of subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry and to have committed her dowry death. It appears that after the investigation, the charge-sheet was not filed against these petitioners and the petitioners were not sent for trial. The protest petition was filed by the informant, but the same was also dismissed by the Court below. However, it appears that the husband of the deceased was facing the trial in S.T No. 12 of 2007, when the prosecution witnesses examined in course of the trial have taken the names of the petitioners, again alleging that the petitioners were subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry. Upon an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C for summoning these petitioners to face the trial along-with the co-accused facing the trial, the same was allowed by order dated 6.10.2010 passed in S.T No. 12 of 2007 which has been challenged in the present revision application. The depositions of the witnesses examined in the Court below, have been brought on record pursuant to the order dated 25.04.2012.
(3.) FROM perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, it is apparent that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case against these petitioners also and they have stated in their examination-In-chief that these petitioners also had made the -2- demand of dowry and that deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture at her matrimonial home for non-fulfillment of the demand. In the impugned order, the Court below has also detailed the statements of the witnesses to show that the witnesses have supported the case against the petitioners also. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the witnesses have not stated about the cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry by these petitioners, though there is allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioners also. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the witnesses have admitted that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by these petitioners due to the fact that she was ugly etc., but not for the demand of dowry. Accordingly, learned counsel has submitted that the offence u/s 304-B of the I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioners and as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;