Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1793 (PAT)

Ilo Mian And Sita Devi v. State Of Bihar

2007-11-21

REKHA KUMARI

body2007
Judgment Rekha Kumari, J. 1. Both the criminal miscellaneous cases are directed against the same order dated 15.2.2006 passed by the Addl. District Judge cum F.T.C.V. Khagaria in S.Tr. No. 137/2004 and as such, they have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common order. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned order has dismissed the petition filed by these petitioners under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 2. According to the complaint petition, the step mother (petitioner Sita Devi) of the complainant along with other co-accused including petitioner Ilo Mian hatched a conspiracy in order to grab the property of the family (the complainants father being dead) by eliminating the complainant and her uncle and abducted the uncle and since abduction he is traceless. The complaint petition was registered as Alauli P.S. Case No. 16/2001. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Ilo Mian submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioner and he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion and the mere suspicion cannot form the basis for framing charge against him. Therefore, it was a case in which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should have allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and should have discharged him. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Sita Devi similarly submitted that there is no legal evidence against the petitioner. There is no evidence in the case diary to show that she was present at the time of alleged abduction. He further submitted that the accused of Complaint Case No. 117C/2001, which was subsequently registered as Alauli P.S. Case No. 38/2001, were inimical to the petitioner and they adbudcted her brother-in-law Rajo Yadav and she has been falsely implicated. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order I find that the court below has referred to some paragraphs of the case diary and has held that as the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and there is sufficient material to proceed against them, it would not be proper to discharge them. 6. It has been observed in the case of State of Maharastra V/s. Salman Salim Khan, that though it is open to the High Court to quash the charge framed by the trial court but the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of evidence. 6. It has been observed in the case of State of Maharastra V/s. Salman Salim Khan, that though it is open to the High Court to quash the charge framed by the trial court but the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of evidence. The principle to be adopted by the High Court in such cases should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. It is only at the stage of trial that the truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence can be judged. 7. In another case Stree Atyachar Virodh Parishad V/s. Dilip Nathumal Chordea it has been held by the Apex Court that if the Sessions Judge after hearing the parties frames charge and also makes an order in support thereof, the law must be allowed to take its own course. Self restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice staring the court in the face. 8. In the present case the complainant (informant) who claims to be eye witness in her complaint petition has clearly stated that her step mother Sita Devi and other co-accused including Ilo Mian to eliminate her and her retarded uncle, the other two legal heirs of her deceased father, always used to hold meetings in order to grab the entire property and on the date of occurrence the petitioner Sita Devi alongwith the other co-accused of the case badly assaulted Rajo Yadav and then got him seated in a jeep and sent him somewhere and since then Rajo Yadav is traceless. The case diary shows that the informant (complainant) has supported her case in toto Under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Though the I.O. has not written in details the statement of the informant Under Sec. 161, but at this stage for the lapses on the part of the I.O.; the prosecution cannot be made to suffer. Hence, in view of the above materials and as the learned Sessions Judge after perusing the case diary has found sufficient materials against the petitioners I do not think it proper to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Both the criminal miscellaneous cases are dismissed.