Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 536 (JHR)

Sayara Bano v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-07-21

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. This revision application arises against the order dated 15.7.2003 passed by the First Sessions Judge, Rajmahal in Session Trial No. 155 of 2002 whereby the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to discharge them. 2. In short the prosecution case as per the FIR is that in the night of the 16/17.1.1997 the informant Sudama Prasad Gupta and his wife were sleeping in a room and their daughters Muni Kumari aged about 15/16 years and Bindu Kumari aged about 13/14 years were sleeping in another room. In the morning Muni Kumari was found missing. The informant started searching his daughter Muni Kumari and then he come to know that she was induced away by Jamshed, a neighbor boy and his daughter was taken to Chandipur and thereafter, she was shifted to Sahibganj. On being enquired, the father of said Jamshed gave evasive reply. When his daughter was not traced out then he lodged FIR under Section 366-A, in which subsequently, Section 376, IPC was also added. 3. Initially, the charge-sheet was Submitted against the main accused Jamshed and subsequently charge-sheet was submitted against these petitioners also on the basis of which cognizance under Sections 366-A and 376 was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter, a petition under Section 227, Cr PC was filed on behalf of these petitioners on the ground that these petitioners have no hand in the alleged occurrence of kidnapping or Inducing or in enticing the informants minor daughter. The learned trial Court after referring some of the paragraph of the case diary came to the conclusion that at the stage of framing of charge meticulous consideration of the evidence was not required and only suffiency of ground for proceeding against the accused has to be seen. Accordingly learned trial Court rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioners by order dated 19.7.2004. 4. This Court issued notice to the opposite party No. 2 in the admission matter and also passed an interim order staying further proceedings of Session Trial against these petitioners. In spite of service of notice, no body has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. 4. This Court issued notice to the opposite party No. 2 in the admission matter and also passed an interim order staying further proceedings of Session Trial against these petitioners. In spite of service of notice, no body has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. Subsequently, affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners stating therein that the Session Trial proceeded against the main accused Jamshed Shikh and the trial Court by the judgment dated 20th December, 2004 acquitted the accused Jamshed Sheikh from the charges under Section 376-A/34, IPC. Considering the fact that prosecution witnesses including the informant did not support the prosecution case. 5. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no case whatsoever is made out against these petitioners for the offence alleged. He further submitted that even the materials collected during investigation do not suggest in any manner that these petitioners had any hand in hatching up any conspiracy in commission of the alleged offence. He further submitted that the paragraphs of case diary which has been mentioned in the impugned order also do not suggest that this petitioner had any hand in the matter. 6. The case diary which was called for, has been perused by me, particularly the relevant paragraphs which has been referred in the impugned order and I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State Mr. Vijay Gopal could not point out any material from the case diary so as to suggest the involvement of these two petitioners in the said alleged occurrence. 8. In that view of the matter I find that there was no material at all against these petitioners so as to frame charge against them. Accordingly this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.7.2003 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside and the petitioners are discharged.