Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside of the order dated 08.01.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, by which in a criminal revision, the Court has set aside the order of the learned trial Court dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure P-2) dismissing an application moved under Section 323 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant and remanded back the case to the learned trial Court for fresh adjudication.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the statement of the complainant-Narain Singh S/o Rijku was recorded to the effect that he and his brother Randhir had a dispute regarding a plot of land in the village. As per him, on 02.05.2011, the accused persons namely, Surat Singh S/o Rijku, Randhir S/o Rijku, Surender S/o Surat Singh, Sandeep S/o Surat Singh, Rani 1 of 10 W/o Randhr Singh, Mukesh W/o Surender and Ram Rati W/o Surat assaulted him and his son Virender and Rohtash. His wife Satwanti is also said to have been assaulted by the accused leading to her death. The specific injuries said to have been caused to his deceased wife Satwanti are culled out from the FIR and reproduced below:-

5. The trial Court passed a detailed order and came to the conclusion that the statement of PW1-Dr. Poonam Dahiya did not in any way suggest that an offence under Section 302/304 IPC was made out and after a 2 of 10 detailed discussion dismissed the application of the complainant vide order dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure P-2).

6. The complainant challenged the same before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, however, remanded the case back to the trial Court for reconsideration but made observations to the effect that a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC was made out and that the case should have been committed to the Court of Sessions. It is this order which is in challenge in the present petition.

9. The learned State counsel has supported the stand of the complainant and has stated that the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat (Annexure P-3) remanding the case back to the trial Court cannot be found fault with.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

11. A perusal of the post-portem (Annexure P-5) of the deceased Satwanti would reveal that no external injury marks on her body were seen. Therefore, the cause of death was to be given after the Histopath Report. The opinion of the doctor (Annexure P-6) after the examination of the Histopath report reads as under:-

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat ought not to have remanded the matter back for reconsideration with the observations to the effect that a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC was made out because it left the learned Magistrate with virtually no discretion in the matter to objectively assess the evidence on record and then pass an order.

9 of 10

18. In view of the above, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dated 08.01.2015 (Annexure P-3) is hereby set aside.