Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 713 (JHR)

Raju Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2008-07-11

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
ORDER D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has filed the instant application against the order dated 8.1.2008 passed by the trial Court in Sessions trial No. 29 of 2001, whereby the petitioner has been directed to appear and face trial. 2. The case against the petitioner was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant namely Krishna Deo Prasad on 8.5.1999 alleging therein that the accused persons named in the FIR, including the petitioner, after forming an unlawful assembly, variously armed with weapons, come to the house of the informant and after abusing the informant assaulted him with sword and other weapons and when the brothers of the informant tried to rescue, they two were assaulted. 3. Though after concluding investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons, but the Police did not recommend trial of the petitioner for any offence. In due course, trial commenced after framing of charge against the accused persons who were sent up for trial. In course of trial, witnesses were examined by the prosecution and on considering the statements of the witnesses namely PWs 3, 4 and 5 who had claimed themselves to be the injured witnesses, the trial Court issued summons directing the petitioner to appear and face trial. 4. Assailing the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law as well as on facts and it was passed without application of judicial mind. Learned Counsel explains that the Court below has failed to consider the relevant materials on record before deciding to proceed against the petitioner. Learned Counsel explains that the investigation conducted by the police did not offer any incriminating evidence against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner was absolved from the liability of the case even in the charge sheet submitted by the police. Neither the informant nor any of the witnesses examined at the trial had made any such statement which could be suggestive of the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. Yet, without considering these aspects of the matter, the trial Court issued summons against the petitioner merely on the basis of the general and omnibus statements of the witnesses and that too made after more than eight years of the alleged occurrence. 5. Yet, without considering these aspects of the matter, the trial Court issued summons against the petitioner merely on the basis of the general and omnibus statements of the witnesses and that too made after more than eight years of the alleged occurrence. 5. Learned Counsel further argues that in the case reported in JLJR 2007 (3) 55 (SC) it has been held that by the Supreme Court that the issuance of summons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be made only after the Court records its satisfaction on the basis of the materials on record including the evidence of the witnesses as also other materials which could be available on record and this should be done only with the object of ensuring justice at the trial. 6. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, while controverting the grounds advanced by the petitioner submits that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the Court below as it has been passed by the Court after recording its satisfaction that there are materials to proceed against the petitioner and such satisfaction has been, arrived at on the basis of the evidences of, the witnesses examined at the trial. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it would transpire that on the issue raised by the prosecution for invoking power of Court under Sections 319, Cr.P.C. the trial Court has made the following observations in the impugned order. Perused the record. It appears that the name of Raju Mahto is in the FIR as a accused in the said case but the concerned 10 not submitted charge-sheet against the accused Raju Mahto, but during the trial of the above case the injured namely Krishna Deo Prasad is examined as PW 2 and he clearly stated that Raju Mahto was present at the place of occurrence and he assaulted the injured persons and PW 3 Dasrath Mahto. PW 4 Ganesh Mahto and PW 5 Mahadeo Mahto are also stated in their evidence that accused Raju Mahto assaulted the injured persons. Therefore the petition under Section 319. Cr.P.C. is allowed and the office clerk is directed to issue summons against the accused Raju Mahto in this case to face the trial together with the other accused persons. 8. PW 4 Ganesh Mahto and PW 5 Mahadeo Mahto are also stated in their evidence that accused Raju Mahto assaulted the injured persons. Therefore the petition under Section 319. Cr.P.C. is allowed and the office clerk is directed to issue summons against the accused Raju Mahto in this case to face the trial together with the other accused persons. 8. It is evident from the above discussions of evidence and findings recorded that the trial Court has arrived at its own satisfaction that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner at the trial and this satisfaction is based on the evidence of the witnesses, namely PWs 3, 4 and 5 who are the injured witnesses and from whose evidence it is evinced that the petitioner had actively participated in the assault on the injured witnesses. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this application. This application is dismissed. Application dismissed.