Chandawa Devi @ Chandawa Mahar and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]d.n. patel, j.1. the present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the circle officer, jarmundi, distt: dumka has pasted a notice of eviction upon the premises, owned by the present petitioners. learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that exparte decision, has been taken by the circle officer, jarmundi which is arbitrary, capricious and whimsical approach and, therefore, he has challenged the decision of the circle officer, jarmundi.2. learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to go before the appropriate officer and will prefer an appeal against the order, passed by the circle officer, jarmundi. the said appeal will be preferred before the deputy commissioner, dumka and till then stay, granted by this court vide order dated 3rd april, 2008 to the effect that the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the property, in question, may be continued till that appeal is preferred and disposed of, before the deputy commissioner, dumka.3. i have heard learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, who has submitted that the petition against a notice is not tenable at law either the petitioner may prefer an appeal or the petitioner may approach to the circle officer, jarmundi. as the order of eviction is an appealable order, the deputy commissioner, dumka is the competent authority to decide the case of the present petitioners.4. learned counsel for the respondent-state who has submitted that if the petitioner is preferring an appeal before the deputy commissioner, dumka, the same will be decided, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and practicable within the time limit given by this court.5. in view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the circle officer, jarmundi has pasted a notice of eviction upon the premises of the present petitioners.the petitioners has submitted that the said order or a notice is an ex-parte decision or order and, therefore, the petitioners want to challenge the same before the deputy commissioner, dumka. if the appeal as well as stay application is preferred, within a period of two months from today, the stay granted by this court vide order dated 3rd april, 2009 shall continue to be operative, till the stay application is decided by the deputy commissioner, dumka and time, consumed in this writ petition will be considered for condonation of delay. as the appeal is provided against the decision, taken by the circle officer, jarmundi, this petition is not entertained, on merits, at this stage. liberty is reserved with the petitioner to move before this court at an appropriate stage after exhausting all the remedies before the respondent-authorities and may raise all points which will be decided by the deputy commissioner, dumka including the locus standi of respondent no. 5.6. in view of the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.