Poonam Singh v. State of Rajasthan — 1996 DIGILAW 1059 (RAJ)

Honble SINGH, J. – By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing the trial of Sessions Case No. 17/1995 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana District Bharatpur and for issuance of direction for reinvestigation of the case by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The facts as unfolded in the instant petition briefly are as under : (2). That on 20.10.94 one Shri Ramesh Chand son of Shri Pratap Singh lodged a report at Police Station Weir at 4.00 pm under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 302 IPC, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the petition. From the allegations contained in the aforesaid FIR it is averred that petitioner is alleged to have caused injuries along with other accused persons to Samundar Singh brother of Ramesh Chand which result into his death. The petitioner was arrested by the local police on 9.12.1994 in connection with the aforesaid FIR. After due investigation police submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons in the Court. The trial is pending before the Sessions Judge in which the petitioner is being tried for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 302 IPC. (3). I have heard Shri R.K. Daga counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence as alleged by the complainant. He further contended that he pleaded alibi before the Investigating Agency. The material and the documents in order to prove that he was not present at the time of occurrence were not considered by the Investigating Agency and the Investigating Agency ignoring the aforesaid documents has submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and in view of the said fact, the whole investigation is vitiated and the charge sheet submitted should be cancelled and reinvestigation should be directed by the CBI afresh. It has been aver- red that the petitioner is a post graduate in Political Science. He had gone to Ajmer on 16.10.94 for attending a case in the Board of Revenue : where, he hired a room at Hindu Hotel, Balaji Gate, Madar Gate and remained in the same. He was to attend the next date in the case on 17.10.94 in which he engaged one Shri Yaga Dutta Sharma, Advocate. He had gone to Ajmer on 16.10.94 for attending a case in the Board of Revenue : where, he hired a room at Hindu Hotel, Balaji Gate, Madar Gate and remained in the same. He was to attend the next date in the case on 17.10.94 in which he engaged one Shri Yaga Dutta Sharma, Advocate. It is further averred that he signed a Vakalatnama on 17.10.94 and the next date fixed for argument was 20.10.94. The petitioner left the hotel on 17.10.94 at 8.20 p.m. and returned to his village. On 19.10.94 petitioner again reached at Ajmer and hired a room in the same hotel. It has been arrested that when the petitioner was arrested on 19.12.94 in the aforesaid case he submitted all the records before the Investigating Officer showing that he was not present at the time of the incident and has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that since the Investigating Officer did not make enquiries in order to ascertain the plea of alibi raised by the petitioner and did not make enquiries at Ajmer in order to ascertain his presence at the time of occurrence, the whole investigation is vitiated. In this regard, he alleged to have sent an application/representation to the Home Minister Rajasthan that the Investigating Officer has not taken into account the document submitted by the petitioner to prove his alibi. In my opinion, the charge sheet submitted by the police after due investigation against the petitioner cannot be quashed merely on the ground that plea of alibi has not been enquired into by the Investigating Officer. No material or facts have been brought to the notice of the Court which may indicate that the Investigating Officer was biased or acting under some influence. The petitioner is an accused in a murder case. The charge sheet has already been submitted against him. The trial is pending before the Sessions Court. Petitioner will have an ample opportunity to prove his innocence and plead plea of alibi. In my opinion, in fact, it is the trial Court which only is competent to record a finding on the plea of alibi if pleaded by the accused. The charge sheet has already been submitted against him. The trial is pending before the Sessions Court. Petitioner will have an ample opportunity to prove his innocence and plead plea of alibi. In my opinion, in fact, it is the trial Court which only is competent to record a finding on the plea of alibi if pleaded by the accused. It would not be out of place to mention that I have perused the contents of Annexure 2 and 3 filed by the petitioner along with the petition, but I dont want to express any opinion at this stage inasmuch as the same is likely to prejudice the case of the petitioner pending before the trial Court. It is pertinent to mention that in view of the fact that the accused has been named in the FIR and the murder has taken in broad day light and there are eye witnesses to the occurrence in such cases. I am of the view that any enquiry embarked upon by the Investigating Agency in order to determine frivolous plea of alibi raised by the accused could be wholly beyond its jurisdiction and in case such enquiry is made by the Investigating Officer that would not be permissible. (4). After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the material on record. I am of the considered view that the mere fact that the Investigating Officer has not accepted the plea of alibi during the course of investigation, the charge sheet submitted by the police cannot be quashed and no reinvestigation can be directed by this Court by another Agency may be Central Bureau of Investigation. (5). For the reasons stated above, the petitioner has failed to make out a prime-facie case and the petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.