IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.410 of 2009
1. BRIJ KISHORE THAKUR
2. LALLUN THAKUR @ LALLAN THAKUR
3. PRAMOD THAKUR
4. NARESH THAKUR
5. JATA SHANKAR THAKUR
6. CHANDRA MOHAN THAKUR
7. BHAGELU THAKUR
8. HARDEO THAKUR
9. ASHESHAR THAKUR
10. SATYENDRA THAKUR
11. NARESH THAKUR
12. JAMUNA THAKUR
13. SANJEET THAKUR @ SANJEET KUMAR THAKUR
14. HARI SHANKAR THAKUR
15. RAJU THAKUR
16. DUKHI THAKUR
17. JITENDRA THAKUR
18. HARENDRA THAKUR
19. CHANARWANSH THAKUR @ CHANDRAWANSH
THAKUR
20. ARVIND THAKUR
...PETITIONERS
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
...OPPOSIE PARTY
For the petitioners :Mr. Basishtha Nr. Mishra &
:Mr.Brij Kishore Misra
For the State :Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP
-----------
2. 29.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
State.
Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 02.02.2009,
passed by learned Special Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in
S.T.No.403 of 2008, whereby their application preferred under
sections 227 and 228 Cr. P.C. for discharge under section 3(i)(x)
of the SC/ST Act has been considered and rejected on the
ground that there is/are sufficient materials available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing
2
the order submits that going by the allegations contained in the
FIR, the allegation of humiliating the informant in his caste
name followed by assault is directed against only one accused
person, namely, Brij Kishore Thakur. As per the FIR lodged on
10.04.2001 at 7.00 P.M. the informant was sitting at the canal
when accused Brij Kishore Thakur came there and started
calling his caste name which was protested whereafter other
accused persons joined him and assault was inflicted upon the
informant and other persons who had assembled at the said place
on the alarm raised by the informant. Petitioners are facing
prosecution under diverse sections of the Penal Code read
with section 3(i)(X) of the SC/ST Act. It is also contended on
behalf of the petitioners that due to previous animosity as
reflected from different FIRs it would appear that there was
hostility between the parties. It is also the contention that the
police submitted charge-sheet under diverse sections of the
Penal Code but not under sections 379 and 436 IPC and section
3(i)(X) SC/ST Act.
It appears that against one of the accused persons,
namely, Sujit Thakur charge sheet was submitted under diverse
sections of IPC including section 3(i)(X) SC/St Act.
Subsequently, another charge sheet was submitted against rest of
the accused persons in which allegation constituting offence
punishable under section 3(i)(X) SC/ST Act was not found to
have been substantiated. It further appears from records that
learned Magistrate differing with the said report had taken
3
cognizance under diverse sections of IPC as also section 3(i)(X)
SC/ST Act.
At the stage of framing of charge, the court has to
only consider as to whether there is/are sufficient evidence on
records justifying proceeding further with the case/trial. The plea
of the petitioner that the present allegation has been levelled due
to animosity and that there is no allegation against the
petitioners constituting offence under section 3(i)(X) SC/ST Act
shall be appraised at the trial. Law is fairly settled that even
on a grave suspicion based on materials on record, accused has
to be put on trial. This Court does not find any patent illegality
in the order meriting interference.
In view of observations hereinabove, the petitioner
shall have liberty to raise/agitate all these issues at the relevant
stage of the proceeding.
With the liberty aforesaid, the application is
disposed of.
( Kishore K. Mandal )
hr