IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23807 of 2008 ARJUN LAL BARNWAL, son of late Motilal, resident of village – Chhotaki Delha, P S – Delha, District – Gaya. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner : M/s.. Ajay Kumar Thakur & Ravi Ranjan I For the informant : Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma. For the State : APP ------ 02. 12.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 19.2.2007 by virtue of which cognizance has been taken under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner because the police for meeting the time frame filed chargesheet against this petitioner without investigating the case fully. He submits that the woman in question namely Guriya Kumari was suffering from heart ailment. She had been extended medical help. The postmortem report shows that the reason for the death of the deceased was only heart ailment and in this circumstance the burden of proof will shift from the accused person in a case under section 304B specially when there are evidence which explains the circumstances of the death and it is not mysterious or unexplained. Learned counsel for the informant submits that already many witnesses (six) have been examined and it is too late for this - 2 - Court to quash the order of cognizance. Submission of learned counsel for the informant to some extent is correct but the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner also merits consideration but the forum for the same is trial court and not in the quashing application before this Court. The application stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise these legal questions before the trial court. It goes without saying that if the petitioner succeeds in explaining the death of Guriya Kumari by cogent evidence, the duty will be upon the prosecution to prove that it is a case of section 304B IPC and not otherwise. The application stands disposed of with the above observation. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J