Ramayan Tiwari @ Ramraj Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 24 August, 2010

Patna High Court
Ramayan Tiwari @ Ramraj Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 24 August, 2010
Author: Akhilesh Chandra
                       CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.21132 OF 2005


In the matter of an application under section 482
Of the Code of Criminal Procedure.






For the Petitioner : M/s Krishna Pd. Singh
Meena Singh &
Manish Kumar no.3

For the State : Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwary,




Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an application under section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of

order dated 21.5.2005 passed by Additional Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Court no.3, Rohtas, Sasaram, in

Sessions Trial no. 290 of 2002 exercising powers under

section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

summoning the petitioner to face trial.

3.Admittedly, one Chenari P.S. Case no.

44 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307

and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted at the

instance of one Anil Tiwary against thirteen persons

including the petitioner who alone, after investigation,

was exonerated by the Police who submitted charge

sheet against twelve accused persons. Accordingly,

cognizance was taken and after commitment the trial

commenced wherein two witnesses Siddhu Tiwary and

Ram Dulari Devi were examined. prayer on behalf of

the informant was made to add the petitioner as one of

the accused. After hearing, court below allowed the

prayer giving reason to file the instant case.

4. Witness no.1 examined on behalf of the

prosecution in trial though has named the petitioner

stating his involvement at initiation of occurrence but

cross-examination of this witness was deferred on

22.11.2004 since thereafter he did not turn up for cross-

examination. No doubt, there is nothing on record to

show what happened thereafter but, prima facie, the

evidence is not complete. Moreover, in paragraph 1 of

his statement the witness has stated contrary to the

prosecution case that petitioner and three others were

digging the field containing paddy plants and there is

nothing more against the petitioner. Another witness

Ram Dulari Devi, who is none else than mother of

P.W.1 likewise her son stated same thing in paragraph 1

contrary to the prosecution case and during cross-

examination paragraph 49 it appears that perhaps in her

statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure she had not named the petitioner besides a

few more that it appears that she has denied the

suggestion. But, again this much can be said that except

initial presence of the petitioner she has said nothing

against him.

5. On face of above materials learned

Additional Public Prosecutor also fairly concedes that

this case stands squarely covered on the decision of the

Apex Court on the similar point in the case of Brinda

Band Das & Others V. State of West Bengal; 2009(2)

BBCJ IV-90 wherein in paragraph 19 it has been held :

“The fulcrum on which the invocation of

Section 319 Cr.P.C. rests is whether the
summoning of persons other than the named
accused would make such a difference to the
prosecution as would enable it not only to
prove its case but to also secure the conviction
of the persons summoned.”

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor

further concedes that there is absolutely nothing to

support the impugned order which fail to prove the test

as prescribed above.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order is

quashed the application stands allowed.

(Akhilesh Chandra, J.)

Patna High Court,
The 24th August, 2010.

AAhmad/ (NAFR).

Leave a Comment

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information