Kiran Jha @ Kiran Kumar Jha & Anr vs State Of West Bengal on 18 April, 2017

1

377 18.04.2017
rkd Ct. No.28 C.R.R. 1278 of 2017

Kiran Jha @ Kiran Kumar Jha Anr.
-vs-
State of West Bengal

Mr. U.C. Jha,
Ms. Maheswari Sharma
….for the petitioner.

Order dated March 16, 2017 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, 17th Court, Alipore in S.T.

No.06(03)17 arising out of S.C. No.28(11)16 rejecting the prayer

for discharge of the petitioner has been assailed.

Prosecution case against the petitioner is to the effect that

the victim Soni Jha was married to Bikram Jha on 31.02.2008

and she was subjected to mental and physical torture by her

husband Bikram and other in-laws including the petitioners

being the brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the

victim/housewife. Such torture was meted out to the victim as

she was unable to give the further demands of dowry. Unable to

bear such torture she died an unnatural death on 28.9.2013.

Over such issue, criminal case was registered against the

petitioner and other accused persons under Sections

498A/304B/34 of the IPC. Post mortem report collected in the

course of investigation revealed that the victim had suffered a

suicidal death. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was

filed under Section 498A/304B of the IPC and 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act. It has been argued that the petitioners

are no way connected with the alleged offences and ought to have

been discharged from the case.

I have considered the materials on record which discloses

that the victim/housewife suffered suicidal death at her

matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage. There are
2

also materials disclosing allegations of cruelty meted out to her

by her husband and the in-laws including the petitioner. There is

a statutory presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act

that the husband and in-laws of a victim housewife, may have

abetted her suicide committed within 7 years of her marriage if it

is shown that she had been subjected to cruelty by them. In view

of such fact refusal to discharge the petitioners from the instant

case cannot be said to be contrary to law. Impugned order is

accordingly upheld.

Petition is dismissed.

Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the

parties on priority basis.

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *