Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 580 (JHR)

Rajendra Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2006-05-09

D.K.SINHA

body2006
Order The Petitioners have preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for direction to the trial court to record the statements of the petitioners under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure afresh strictly on the basis of the materials on the record. 2. The main contentions of the petitioners are that as many as 17 witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution, but not a single witness has in any manner implicated the petitioners in murder of Chiku Sardar. The witnesses did not suggest directly or indirectly that these two petitioners had offered Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh) as supari (contract) for the assassination of Chiku Sardar and as such trial court acted illegally and without jurisdiction introducing the questions being put to the petitioners that they had offered Rs. 5.00,000/- (Supari of Rupees five lacs) for the said killing. As a matter of fact, Investigation Officer, P. W.1 0, deposed in paragraph 6 of his statement that it was none but the absconder accused Bindu Singh. who had demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- as Rangdari from Chiku Sardar on phone prior to his murder and, therefore, such question put to the petitioners is uncalled for and misconstrued while formulating the questions under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Learned counsel further contended that the trial court tried its best to invent materials against the petitioners on the basis of so-called confessional statements of co-accused recorded by. the police in custody and were illegally marked as Exhibits 6 and 6/1 but such exhibits were expunged by the intervention of this court passed in w.P. (Cr.) No. 257 of 2005 on 4.10.2005. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that question put to the accused petitioners under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to taking of liquor shops of different places against consideration of Rs. 22,00,000/- by Chiku Sardar was also beyond materials either in the statements of prosecution witnesses or any documentary evidence on the record and, therefore, such question put to the petitioners was not maintainable. 22,00,000/- by Chiku Sardar was also beyond materials either in the statements of prosecution witnesses or any documentary evidence on the record and, therefore, such question put to the petitioners was not maintainable. Similarly, the petitioners were not in any manner involved in Cash P.S. Case No. 79 of 2000 in abduction of Chiku Sardar (since deceased) and obtaining his signature by using force on him since being not stated by any of the prosecution witnesses in the court but such fact has also been introduced in the questions put to the petitioners under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Finally, it has been submitted that the learned trial court grossly erred by putting several distinct question based upon various facts by analyzing it in a single question which has materially prejudiced the petitioners and as such the statements recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are liable to be quashed to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 6. The Supreme Court of India in Parsuram Pandey & Ors. VS. State of Bihar reported in 2005(1) JLJR 12 held as under: "This Court time and again has laid down that it is obligatory on the part of the Trial Court to examine the accused for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstance appearing in evidence against him. If such opportunity is not afforded, the incriminating piece of evidence available in the prosecution evidence against the accused cannot be relied upon for the purpose of recording the conviction of the accused person. It is imperative on the Court to record the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the accused persons so as to give opportunity to the accused persons to explain any incriminating circumstance proved by the prosecution. The duty cast on the Court cannot be taken lightly." 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the court finds, prima facie, that the question put to the accused petitioners in their statements recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not in consonance with the materials collected in course of their trial which is irregular in law which can be cured. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the court finds, prima facie, that the question put to the accused petitioners in their statements recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not in consonance with the materials collected in course of their trial which is irregular in law which can be cured. It is trite law that the examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not intended to be an idle formality. It has to be carried out in the interest of justice and fairplay to the accused. 8. In the result, the statements of the petitioners Rajendra Kumar Gupta and Jawahar Lal Gupta recorded by the court of 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 2002 arising out of Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No.4 of 2001 is set aside with the direction to the said court to record the statements of the petitioners afresh under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based upon the substantive materials on record and by putting distinct questions on the distinct issues in accordance with law and dispose of the sessions case as soon as possible. This petition is allowed.