Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12004 of 2011 1. Chandradep Prasad 2. Umesh Prasad 3. Rajo Prasad alias Rajaram Prasad alias Raja Prasad, all sons of Durga Prasad. 4. Sitabia Devi, wife of Durga Prasad. 5. Shakila Devi, wife of Umesh Prasad. 6. Samirata Devi, wife of Rajo Prasad alias Raja Prasad 7. Pawan, son of Raja Prasad 8. Pinki Kumari, Daughter of Umesh Prasad 9. Kunal Prasad, son of Umesh Prasad, all resident of Mahendi Bigha, Police Station-Chandi, District- Nalanda ----- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Binda Prasad alias Surya Prakash Singh, son of Ram Lakhan Yadav, resident of Salempur, Police Station-Karya Prarvoapur, District- Nalanda ---- Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sakil Ahmad Khan, Sr.Advocate. For the State : Anil Kumar, A.P.P. ----------- 2. 6.1.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. Earlier the petitioners had moved before this Court for quashing the order of cognizance vide Cr. Misc. No. 7547 of 2008 and a liberty was given to the petitioners to raise all the points at the stage of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as „the Code‟). Liberty was further given to the petitioners to raise all the points before the trial court at the time of framing of charge and if on going through the materials the court 2 below feels that no purpose will be served if the trial is proceeded, the petitioners‟ case may be considered for discharge under Section 227 of the Code. Accordingly the petitioner at the stage of Section 227 of the Code had filed an application for discharge. 3. The court of session vide order dated 14.2.2011 on a consideration of the evidence on record had rejected the application and proceeded with the trial. While rejecting the case the court below, as it appears from the order-sheet, has examined the case diary and has also considered the judgment relied on by the petitioners in the case of Shri Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Another, reported in BBCJ 1997 SC 53 and came to a finding that on looking to the evidence on record a prima facie case under [STATUTE] is made out. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment in the case of Shri Satish Mehra (supra) that is an exceptional case in which the complainant has raised allegation first in U.S.A. and that matter was investigated by U.S.A. police and had found the allegation made by wife against the husband was untrue. When she 3 came to India again similar allegation was raised against the husband and in that exceptional circumstance the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has interfered with the matter. 5. The Supreme Court while deciding the case in Sri Satish Mehra (supra) has held that the strict standard of proof normally adhered to at the final stage is not to be applicable at the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge petition is some what different. At this stage, the court is to confine itself with the sufficiency of materials available on record in this context, the Apex Court has held as follows: “Para-10: In Alomohan Das V. State of West Bengal (AIR 1970 SC 863), Shah,J. (as he then was) has observed in the context of considering the scope of committal proceedings under Section 209 of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure (1898) that a Judge can Sift and weigh the materials on record by seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment. It is open to the Court to weigh the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced to check whether there is any basic infirmity. Of course, the exercise is to find out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. Para-11 : In Union of India V. Prafullakumar 1979 Cr.L.J. 154, this Court has observed that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge has “the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out”. However, their Lordships pointed out that the 4 test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. “By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion the Judge would be fully within his right to discharge the accused.” At the same time the Court cautioned that a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighing the evidence as if he was conducting the trial is not expected or even warranted at this stage.” 6. In this case the court after examining the record has come to a finding that a prima facie case against the petitioner is made out. The finding is based on statements recorded during investigation. The satisfaction of Trial Court about prima-facie case was made out against the petitioner can not be said to be without any basis. 7. In that view of the matter, the court below has rightly exercised the power in refusing to entertain the application under section 227 of the Code. 8. The application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( Shivaji Pandey, 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.