Jharkhand High Court


Jharkhand High Court: The division bench of Ravi Ranjan, C.J., and Sujit Narayan Prasad, J., took suo motu cognizance of the Dumka murder case and instructed the Director of the All-India Institute of Medical Science (‘AIIMS'), Deoghar to submit a report about the availability of medical facilities and burn ward in the hospital.


The 16-year-old girl was burnt alive by pouring petrol over her body. She succumbed to death while being treated at Rajendra Institute of Medical Science (‘RIMS'). The death occurred due to lack of medical facilities which were not provided to the victim immediately.

As the crime was heinous and the occurrence stirred the conscience of the entire country, the Court decided to monitor the case and took suo motu cognizance for expeditious investigation and to conduct trial. The Court also called upon Advocate General (‘AG') for assistance.

The Court also called upon the Director General of Police (‘DGP') and the Secretary of the Department of Home (‘Secretary') to take into consideration the seriousness of the matter.

The Court has asked Advocate General to respond to the following queries:

  1. Extent of burn injury?

  2. Why the victim was compelled to be rushed to RIMS which is 280kms away from Dumka?

  3. Whether proper treatment could have been provided in the nearby hospital which was 2 hours away, i.e., AIIMS, Deoghar?

  4. Stage of investigation and who all have been apprehended?

  5. Whether the family members of the victim were being threatened by the associates of the accused, as it has been reported?

  6. According to the media publish, the victim was a minor, so how could she have been shown to be a major on the date of occurrence?

The Court further directed AIIMS to submit a report about all the medical facilities available and especially about the availability of burn ward. In case of non- availability of burn ward, the provision for the burn injury victims to be treated at Trauma Centre. The Court also asked Director General of Police to provide adequate security for the family members of the victim.

[Court on its own motion v. State, W.P. (PIL) No. 4199 of 2022, decided on 30-08-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General, for the State;

Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to A.G.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.