Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1526 (PAT)

Rajiv Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2008-10-01

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2008
Judgment 1. The three F.I.R. named accused of Sessions Trial No.122 of 2004, arising out of Jahanabad P.S. Case No. 44 of 2003, have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 1.10.2006 passed therein by Sri C.B. Dwivedi, the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.-V, Jahanabad, whereby he has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution case based on the fardbeyan of one Shyamji Prasad Singh, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, recorded at about 10.30 A.M. on 1.2.2003 inter alia is to the effect that there was hulla in the village that a person had been shot and his dead body had been thrown in the payne to the west of Beldoribigha. The informant alongwith others reached the spot and saw the dead body of his son Anil Singh. There were several firearm injuries on his body and there was a cut mark on his left cheek. It is said that deceased Anil was the eldest son of the informant and was employed as a Guard in ISI Works Limited Company in Bombay and had come home on 22.1.2003. It is further said that at about 12 noon on 31.1.2003 he had gone on a cycle to village Neema to attend the shradh ceremony of his sarhaj and had not returned on that day. It is further stated that deceased Anil had no enmity with any one but co-villagers Shiv Kumar Singh, Amar Singh and Rajiv Kumar had land dispute for the past two years and some 15-20 days back an altercation had taken place where the informant was threatened with dire consequences. The informant was suspicious that it was as a consequence of the land dispute that Anil had been killed by the aforesaid persons. 3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan Jahanabad P.S. Case No. 44 of 2003 was registered under Sections 302, 201/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and after due investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet against Shiv Kumar Prasad Singh and Amar Singh under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act. Subsequently, another charge-sheet was submitted against Rajiv Kumar under the same Sections and cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on different dates. 4. Subsequently, another charge-sheet was submitted against Rajiv Kumar under the same Sections and cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on different dates. 4. It appears that during the pendency of the investigation, the informant filed a protest petition on 8.4.2003 alleging therein that the daroga had entered into collusion with the accused persons and was not recording the correct statements and instead he was twisting the statements of the witnesses to benefit the accused. It was also stated that the statement of some of the witnesses had not been recorded at all. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that admittedly a Title Suit No. 55 of 2002 is pending wherein petitioner no. 3 is the plaintiff and the two sons of the informant of the instant case, Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar are the defendants. The fact of pendency of the Title Suit also finds mention in the case diary. It has also been submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate that the allegations made in the protest petition were absolutely vague and devoid of any detail of the name of the witnesses whose statements were twisted and those who were not examined. The learned counsel was also critical of the fact that the court below failed to appreciate that there was neither any direct nor any circumstantial evidence to proceed against the accused. 6. It is by now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court as also this Court that where there is grave suspicion charges can be framed. At the stage of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. which have to be read in juxtaposition, the probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into. At this stage, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged by the court or to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction or otherwise. 7. On perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the son of the informant died of firearm injuries and cut injury on his cheek. It is also on record that a Title Suit is pending between petitioner no. 3 and the two sons of the informant. 7. On perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the son of the informant died of firearm injuries and cut injury on his cheek. It is also on record that a Title Suit is pending between petitioner no. 3 and the two sons of the informant. It also appears that the accused had advanced threats of dire consequences. That apart a protest petition had been filed against the I.O. not conducting the investigation properly. To my mind, the prosecution is entitled to prove the case and complete the claim during trial. The circumstances also show a case of grave suspicion. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I find no illegality in the impugned order and as such the application is dismissed.