Harish Chandra Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in S.T. No. 180 of 2011, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., was allowed and the petitioners were summoned to face the trial for the offences under Sections 304B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE petitioners are the father -in -law and the other in -laws of the deceased and the deceased informant had made allegations that her in -laws, including the petitioners, had put her to fire after pouring kerosene oil on her, due to which she was badly burnt and she was brought to the hospital. Subsequently, in course of the treatment she died. It appears that the case was investigated and after investigation, the Police had submitted the charge sheet against the husband only. The petitioners were not sent for trial. In course of the trial in the Court, in which, the husband of the deceased was facing trial, the evidence was adduced to show that there was dying declaration of the deceased which was supported by P.W. -1, the father of the deceased, who had deposed that he was informed by his daughter while she was in injured condition that the petitioners also put her to fire. In view of the evidence, the petitioners were summoned to face the trial for the offences under Sections 304B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is absolutely illegal, in view of the fact that the trial was separated, in which, the husband of the deceased was ultimately acquitted by the Trial Court for the offences under sections 304B and 302 of the IPC, but he has been convicted and sentenced only for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has accordingly, submitted that on the same set of the evidence the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Sections 304B and 302 of the IPC cannot be secured and the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that even otherwise, there is no material to secure the conviction of the petitioners and as such the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
(3.) IN support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 844, wherein where, the court had exercised the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., on the basis of the evidence of a person who was not the eyewitness to the occurrence and other witnesses was only the hearsay witnesses, the Supreme Court in the facts of the case held that no evidence worth the name, had been brought on record to arrive at the satisfaction that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction of the appellants and accordingly, the impugned order was set aside.;