JUDGMENT

Mohit Kumar Shah, J. - Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Verma, assisted by Ms. Madhubala Verma, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the informant.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.12.2019 passed by the learned court of F.T.C.-II, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 344 of 2017 (arising out of Sahiyara P.S. Case No. 138 of 2016), under Sections 341, 323, 307, 498A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and later on Section 304 (B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been added, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of P.W.-4, Dr. Nimal Kumar Singh, for his re- examination, has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that a Sahiyara P.S. Case No. 138 of 2016 was initially registered on the basis of the statement of the victim lady, namely, Khushbu Kumari against her husband and her in-laws, inter alia alleging therein that her marriage had taken place according to Hindu Right and Customs with one Satish Kumar Singh about two and a half years back and on 30.10.2016 at about 5.30 pm. in the evening, when she was in her in-laws' house, her husband, namely, Satish Kumar Singh, her father-in-law, namely, Rambabu Singh, her brother-in-law, namely, Tunni Ji @ Avinash Kumar, her elder brother-in-law, namely, Rajesh Singh, her sister-in-law, namely, Bharti and her mother-in-law, namely, Pawan Devi, who were always torturing the informant for non-fulfilment of the demand of motorcycle, had conspired together and her brother-in-law, namely Tunni had injected an injection from behind, in the body of the informant, whereafter the mind of the informant became restless. It is further alleged that thereafter, all the accused persons had sprinkled kerosene oil on the body of the informant and had set her body on fire resulting in her becoming grievously injured, whereupon she was taken in an injured condition by her in-laws to Sitamarhi, however, the Doctor, sensing that the condition of the informant was serious, had advised to take the informant elsewhere and then the informant was brought at I.T. Memorial Hospital Bhikhanpur where she was admitted in ICU in a serious condition. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the ASI, Ahiyapur, leading to registration of Sahiyara P. S. Case No. 138 of 2016 dated 7.11.2016 under Sections 341/323/307/498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. It appears that the victim lady i.e. the informant of the present case died on 13.11.2016, whereupon Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code was added. The police, upon investigation, has found the case to be prima facie true as against the accused persons and had then submitted a chargesheet against all the FIR named accused persons under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well and then the learned court below has also taken cognizance and committed the case to the sessions court for trial and disposal.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Dr. Nirmal Kumar Singh was examined as P.W.-4 by the prosecution and after cross-examination by the defence, he was discharged. It is submitted that the evidence of the P.W.-4 shows that he has made statement in contradiction to the injury report, which could be discovered only after discharge of P.W.-4, hence an application for recall of PW-4 was filed by the prosecution on 15.9.2018, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., so that he could be reexamined. It is further submitted that the injury report of the deceased, namely, Khushbu Kumari shows that she had received 80 per cent burn injuries on her body and she is stated to have been treated at 6 pm. on 30.10.2016, however, the said injury report has been signed by the Doctor only on 21.4.2017. It is further submitted that the injury report does not contain any mark of identification of the deceased