Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17342 of 2010 ====================================================== Kashi Nath Bind, son Late Kapil Bind, resident of village-Kajipur, P.D.- Semari, District-Buxar. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Gupteshwar Bind, son of Jamuna Bind, r/o village-Chakky Laxaman Dera, Brahampur (Chakky O.P.), District-Buxar. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, Adv. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Anic Kumar Roy, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Abha Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI C.A.V. ORDER 4. 30-08-2012 Petitioner /accused has challenged the order dated 20.03.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-3, Buxar in Sessions Trial 208 of 2008 whereby and whereunder prayer of the prosecution to examine three witnesses as named in the petition has been allowed. On the fardbeyan of Gupteshwar Bind recorded on 01.06.2006 putting an allegation that his daughter Bedami Devi was done to death at her Sasural in the background of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, Simri P.S. Case No.77 of 2006 was registered under [STATUTE] . against the accused persons and investigation was taken up and after concluding the same, charge sheet was submitted which ultimately led trial before the court concerned after having the cognizance taken thereupon as well as having the case committed to the court of Session. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the 2. order passed by the learned lower court is bad in law as well as on facts, hence is fit to be set aside. It has further been submitted that allowing the prayer of the prosecution to examine three more witnesses who are admittedly not a charge sheet witness at the present moment when the remaining charge sheet witnesses are yet to be examined, has been made in arbitrary manner without assigning any cogent and reasonable ground. Not only this, it has further been submitted that for the present the petition filed on behalf of prosecution dated 26.02.2009 happens to be premature and is accordingly fit to be dismissed. At the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that from the order impugned, it is evident that learned lower court had allowed the prayer taking into account the power vested under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. So submitted that order impugned happens to be legal, just and proper and is fit to be confirmed. From the order impugned, it is not clear whether all the charge sheet witnesses have already been examined or not. However, from the petition dated 26.02.2009 filed on behalf of prosecution, it is evident that the prosecution case is still going on. Furthermore, from the order impugned it is evident that the learned lower court had allowed the prayer taking into account their propriety in the just decision of the case, a criteria for application of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Before coming to Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., it looks better to incorporate Section 231 of the Cr.P.C. which governs the trial and the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses. Section 231. Evidence for prosecution. – (1) On the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. (2) The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross- examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination. That means to say the Judge was under obligation to examine all the prosecution witnesses which the prosecution intends to examine. The sanctity of the evidence is to be adjudged at the appropriate stage of trial but so far examination of witness is concerned, the section does not prescribe any embargo till the proceeding is alive to the extent of examination of witnesses on behalf of prosecution. Therefore, when the prosecution case has not found to be closed, the option lies upon the prosecution to examine the witnesses whom it wants to examine. So far application of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the same has been subject to consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court times without number and in a decision reported in (2011) 8 SCC page 136 it has been held: 13. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: ―311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.—Any court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person 4. already examined; and the court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.‖ This section consists of two parts viz. (1) giving discretion to the court to examine the witness at any stage; and (2) the mandatory portion which compels a court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The section enables and in certain circumstances, imposes on the court the duty of summoning witnesses who would have been otherwise brought before the court. This section confers a wide discretion on the court to act as the exigencies of justice require. The power of the court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act is complementary to its power under this section. These two sections between them confer jurisdiction on the court to act in aid of justice. 14. There is no manner of doubt that the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a vast one. This power can be exercised at any stage of the trial. Such a power should be exercised provided the evidence which may be tendered by a witness is germane to the issue involved, or if proper evid

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.