Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9538 of 2011 (2) dt.22-06-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9538 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Sushila Devi W/O Sri Bikau Yadav, Resident of Village Patar, Police Station- Saharghat, District -Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 22-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 24.1.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 2005. From the F.I.R. it appears that one Kiran Devi niece of the informant was married on 3rd May 1996 with Sanjay @ Madan Yadav son of Bikau Yadav. The bride groom and father-in- law were always demanding Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) but the informant was showing inability. On 23.2.1997 after second marriage the victim girl went to her in-laws’ place but Sanjay @ Madan Yadav had threatened for dire consequences, if Rs. 10,000/- was not paid to him. On 6.4.1997 the informant received information that his niece had died. Thereafter, the informant knew that his niece was well at about 11 o’ clock in the night and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9538 of 2011 (2) dt.22-06-2012 husband Sanjay @ Madan Yadav, petitioner and Bikau Yadav all in a planned manner killed his niece. It appears that the Police had submitted the charge- sheet against the husband and father-in-law but the petitioner being mother-in-law was let off. During the course of trial witnesses have narrated about the involvement of the petitioner and also so much so that PW-2 has specifically mentioned the manner of action committed by the accused persons and even by this petitioner. The court below after considering the evidence on record had issued the summons against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material against the petitioner for issuing summons against her. There is an allegation of killing by poisoning but the material evidences are lacking. It has further been submitted that family of the petitioners had previous enmity with PW-2 and purposely with the malicious intention has named this petitioner so much so that he has further submitted that there is/was a land dispute which is the cause for making such statement by PW-2. The counsel for the State has submitted that the court below has rightly exercised the power under section 319 Cr. P.C. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9538 of 2011 (2) dt.22-06-2012 as the name of the petitioner has come during the trial. Section 319 Cr. P.C. can be exercised even after the person is discharged at the earlier stage but if the material comes during the trial, in that circumstance the court has jurisdiction to issue the summons to the persons concerned. Having considered the rival contention of the parties it appears from the record that the PW-2 has specifically mentioned the name of petitioner and has given full details of incidence and the role played by her in his statement during trial. The court below considered the deposition of PW-2 and the other materials exercised the power [STATUTE] ot find any error in the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise all the points before the court below at the appropriate stage of the trial. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 319

Statute Text:
Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code. None. Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.