Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1029 (PAT)

Dhora Ram v. State Of Bihar

1999-09-30

S.K.KATRIAR

body1999
Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This application at the instance of the informant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under the inherent powers of this Court, is directed against the order, dated 24.3.1995 passed by Shri Chiranji Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Bettiah, in State of Bihar V/s. Shreekant Mahto, Sessions Trial No. 77/1994, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 319 and/or cognate provisions of the Indian Penal Code, and has directed the petitioner (informant) to agitate the issue raised in the aforesaid application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 2. According to the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR), dated 5.11.1993, lodged with the officer-in-charge, Shikarpur Police Station, that the accused-persons named therein had trespassed into his house on 2.11.1993, had deprived his daughter, Smt. Shobha Devi, of her ornaments and a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. Thereafter, she was forcibly taken away. On these allegations, Narkatiaganj PS Case No. 230 of 1993, dated 2.11.1993, was registered under Sections 363 and 366-A, IPC. A copy of the FIR is marked Annexure 1 to this application. 3. The police conducted investigation into the allegations and submitted its charge-sheet, dated 22.3.1994, whereby only accused Shreekant Mahto was recommended for trial. The charge-sheet was accepted, cognizance of the alleged offences was taken, and Shreekant Mahto (opposite-party No. 2 herein), was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial has commenced and nine witnesses have been examined. 4. The petitioner filed an application, dated 22.12.1994 (Annexure 3) under Section 319 of the Code before the trial Court, praying there in that materials have come on record during course of trial, namely, the statement of Smt. Shobha Devi under Section 164, Cr PC, as well as the depositions of PWs 6, 7 and 8 which implicated five more accused-persons, who are opposite-party Nos. 3 to 7 before this Court. The same has been rejected by the impugned order, dated 24.3.1995, whereby the petitioner has been directed to move the Chief Judicial Magistrate in that respect. 5. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present situation is entirely covered by the provisions of Section 319 of the Code which enables the trial Court to inquire and try more persons if materials come on record during course of the trial implicating such other persons, who are already accused. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present situation is entirely covered by the provisions of Section 319 of the Code which enables the trial Court to inquire and try more persons if materials come on record during course of the trial implicating such other persons, who are already accused. He further submits that the position became manifest from depositions of PWs 6, 7 and 8. Therefore, they cannot be held to be guilty for any delay or laches in this respect. 6. Mr. Ram Krishna Prasad, learned APP, has made his submissions. No one appears on behalf of opposite-party Nos. 2 to 7. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this application has to be allowed. The learned Sessions Judge has committed a cross-error of law apparent on the face of the record. Section 319 is meant to take care of situation like the present one. By his manifestly illegal order directing the petitioner to move the CJM, he has only succeeded in delaying the trial in such a gross case as the present one. He ought to have realised that he was in seisin of the matter and the entire records were before him. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application in question, inter alia, on the ground that in case the same is allowed, it would delay the trial and also result in harassment to accused Shreekant Mahto. I regret to record that this is a wholly irrelevant consideration for purposes of disposal of application under Section 319 of the Code. In fact, it appears to me from a plain reading of the materials before me that Shri Chiranji Singh, Sessions Judge, was not acting bona fide in the matter and was perhaps actuated by ulterior motive. In the circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that the other accused-persons, who are opposite-party Nos. 3 to 7 named herein above, must be tried along with accused Shreekant Mahto. 8. I will be failing in my duty if I fail to record that the learned Sessions Judge further erred in refusing to amend the charge-sheet and include Section 376, IPC therein. 3 to 7 named herein above, must be tried along with accused Shreekant Mahto. 8. I will be failing in my duty if I fail to record that the learned Sessions Judge further erred in refusing to amend the charge-sheet and include Section 376, IPC therein. It is manifest from the statements of Smt. Shobha Devi under Section 164 of the Code as well as her deposition as PW 6 that she was raped on way to Nepal by some of the accused-persons. In exercise of my inherent powers under the Code. I hereby direct the trial Court to amend the charge and try the concerned accused-persons under Sections 376, IPC as well. 9. In the result, this application is allowed, the impugned order, dated 24.3.1995, passed in State of Bihar V/s. Shreekant Mahto, Sessions Trial No. 77/1994, passed by Shri Chiranji Singh, Sessions Judge, Bettiah, is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to summon opposite-party Nos. 3 to 7 herein to stand their trial along with accused Shreekant Mahto in S.T. No. 77/94. As directed above, the trial Court shall amend the charge and try the concerned accused-persons under Section 376, IPC as well. This being a fairly old case, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial on a day-to-day basis and expeditiously.