Cr. Revision No. 153 of 2005
...
Against the order dated 20.01.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, VIth,
Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 355 of 2004.
…
1. Sunil Kr. Pandey @ Gudul Pandey
2. Ranjan Prajapati
3. Durgesh Gupta
4. Bablu Pandey @ Chuttu Pandey … … Petitioners
V e r s u s
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
…
For the Petitioners : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Anita Sinha, APP.
...
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR.
...
By Court: This revision has been filed against the order dated 20.01.2005
passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions
Trial No. 355 of 2004, whereby he rejected the application of
petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
concluded that prima facie offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is
made out.
It is submitted by Sri H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the
petitioners, that there is absolutely no evidence to show that
petitioners committed the present crime. It is submitted that the
petitioners were chargesheeted merely on suspicion. It is further
submitted that though two sisters of deceased claimed that they will
identify the culprit, if they would be shown to them, but no test
identification parade conducted to establish the involvement of
petitioners in the present crime. Accordingly, it is submitted that in
the absence of any legal evidence petitioners are entitled to be
discharged as per provisions contained under Section 227 of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
On the other hand, Smt Anita Sinha, learned Additional P.P.
referred paragraph nos. 21, 22, 23, 25, 32, 33, 45, 52 & 119 of the
case diary to show that there are circumstantial evidence against
petitioners from which it can be inferred that petitioners had
committed murder of informant’s son. Accordingly, it is submitted
that the court below had rightly rejected application of petitioners
under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record
of the case. Admittedly, first information report was lodged by the
father of deceased, wherein no allegations made against petitioners.
Rather, in the first information report informant (father of deceased)
categorically stated that deceased was driving the maruti van in rash
and negligent manner and because of that maruti van dashed with a
stone causing injury to deceased. In the first information report, it is
not stated that two sisters of deceased also accompanied him to the
clinic of Dr. Manoj Jain. However, from perusal of statements of two
sisters of deceased at paragraph nos. 21 & 22 of the case dairy, I find
that they claimed to have accompanied deceased to the clinic of Dr.
Manoj Jain and during that period they came to know that in the
afternoon deceased along with petitioners Ranjan Prajapati and
Durgesh Gupta went to tea stall for taking tea. Apart from that, they
did not state anything against the accused persons. It further appears
sisters of deceased claim that they could identify culprits, if shown to
them, but unfortunately, T.I. Parade not conducted, thus, whether
these petitioners are involved in the present crime or not had not
been established. At paragraph nos. 23 & 24 of the case diary, two
brothers of deceased only cast suspicion against petitioner Ranjan
Prajapati. The informant (father of deceased) in his subsequent
statement, at paragraph no. 25 of the case dairy, also cast suspicion
on petitioners. Paragraph no. 46 of the case diary reveals that I.O.
gathered some confidential information showing involvement of
petitioners in the present crime. However, I.O. did not disclose
source of aforesaid information. Thus, materials available at
paragraph no. 46 of the case diary is no evidence. Now coming to
paragraph no. 52 of the case diary, one of the brother of deceased
states that he came to know that petitioners had committed present
crime, but this witness also did not disclose source of his information.
Thus, his evidence at paragraph no. 52 of the case diary is not
admissible being hit by Section 60 of the Evidence Act. At paragraph
no. 119 of the case diary, a girl namely Manila also cast suspicion
against accused persons. Thus, from perusal of entire case diary, I
find that save and except suspicion, there is absolutely no legal and
positive evidence against the accused persons. It is well settled that
suspicion howsoever stronger it may be, cannot take the place of
evidence. In my view, merely on suspicion, petitioners cannot be
tried for the murder of deceased Rahul Gupta.
In view of discussions made above, I find material illegality
and/or irregularity in the impugned order of the court below. Thus,
the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this revision is allowed
and impugned order is set aside. The court below is directed to make
fresh inquiry and pass order in accordance with law.
(Prashant Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated : 09.09.2011
Sunil/NAFR