Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26450 of 2010 ====================================================== Bibekanand Rai @ Vivekanand Rai & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Mohan Sharma, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. C. Sen Pd. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 2 06-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional P.P. for the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 23.12.2008 whereby and whereunder learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar had taken cognizance for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] and summoned the petitioners including others. Simple submission on behalf of the petitioners is that they were not sent up for trial by the investigating authority in the background of statement of one of the witnesses namely, Munna Ram recorded under paragraph-79 of the case diary wherein it has been disclosed that all the three petitioners namely, Bibekanand Rai @ Vivekanand Rai, Ravi Shankar Rai and Suman Kumari happen to be minors. From the order-sheet it is evident that presently the case is pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Buxar bearing Sessions Trial No. 265 of 2009 and the mode of prayer so raised on behalf of the petitioner did speak that they are still evading Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26450 of 2010 (2) dt.06-03-2012 2 their presence on one pretext or other. Solitary statement of the witness is not going to support the plea of the petitioner unless and until they surrender before the court concerned and pray before the court that they happen to be juvenile and the court after considering the materials whatever been produced on their behalf as well as after getting medical report, if any, during course of holding an enquiry under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 will come to a definite finding whether the petitioners are juvenile or not. If the court comes to a conclusion that all the petitioners or any of them are/is juvenile will bifurcate his trial and will transmit the same to the Juvenile Justice Board. So far propriety of the order impugned is concerned, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was within his domain to differ from the conclusion of the investigating authority and summoned the petitioners to face trial while taking cognizance. In the aforesaid background, I do not see any illegality in the order impugned. Consequent thereupon, the petition is dismissed. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 304B

Statute Text:
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Dowry death. Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.