Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 642 (PAT)

Bhagwat Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2006-07-27

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 17.8.2004, passed in Sessions Trial No. 302/2000 whereby the petitioner has been summoned u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. of Siwan (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 188/99 instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Ram Ekwal Choudhary, in connection with murder of his son, Manager Choudhary. The dead body of son of the informant was found in the morning and the F.I.R. was instituted against one, Tarkeshwar Prasad and unknown person. 4. During investigation, the wife of the deceased was examined and she stated that she came to know about the murder of deceased subsequently. Other witnesses were examined but nothing has been said by them against the petitioner. The informant did not file any protest petition against investigation and charge-sheet was submitted against the named accused only and the petitioner was not sent up for trial. Finally, the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. During trial, four witnesses were examined. witnesses in their evidence have simply stated that the deceased had earlier disclosed that he had threat to his life at the instance of Bhgawat Prasad (petitioner). Simply suspicion was raised by the witnesses, though they did not alleged any specific overt act against the petitioner. On the basis of such evidence, a petition was filed u/s 319 Cr. P.C. for summoning the petitioner to face trial. The trial court by the impugned order has summoned the petitioner for trial. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions reported in 2005(1) PLJR 50 (SC) and (2005) S.C.C. (II) 182. Almost in all these decisions, the Apex Court has given a finding that unless there is specific and substantial evidence against the person just for fishing inquiry, no one should be summoned u/s 319 of the Cr. P.C. The evidence before the trial court in course of trial, must indicate that there is sufficient material for the purposes of conviction of that person. P.C. The evidence before the trial court in course of trial, must indicate that there is sufficient material for the purposes of conviction of that person. If the evidence is not sufficient, specific and substantial for conviction, any person should not be summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. If only suspicion has been raised or vaguely his name has been taken, summoning anyone for trial u/s 319 Cr.P.C. has serious implications and this jurisdiction should not be exercised, without there being sufficient reason for the same. 6. In the present case, the material which has come in evidence is merely suspicion and presumption. No substantial evidence is there that the petitioner has either participated or any one has seen him participated or any one has seen him participating in the occurrence. Since there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, the case is fully covered by the decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner. 7. Counsel appearing for the State unsuccessfully tried to differentiate the case of petitioner in order to show that the petitioners case is not covered by the decisions cited. 8. I find that there is not force in the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the State. 9. On consideration of entire material as well as the decision cited by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am of the view that there was no sufficient evidence before the trial court for summoning the petitioner for facing trial u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C. The order suffers from jurisdictional error. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 17.8.04 passed in S.Tr. No. 302/2000 is quashed. This application is allowed.