Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 451 (JHR)

Mukesh Yadav @ Rajdeo Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2010-04-12

D.K.SINHA

body2010
Order The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 3.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Latehar in S.T. No. 87 of 2009 arising out Barwadih P.S. Case No. 48 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 399 of 2008 by which the petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge was rejected for the alleged various offences under Sections 147/148/ 149/307/302/353/332 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Sections 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. 2. The prosecution story is based upon the self-statement of the informant Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Barwadih Police Station who narrated therein that on 22.8.2006 while he alongwith the police force was going towards Betla Forest on routine patrolling suddenly, a blast was heard on the right side of the road .and thereafter, it was alleged that the extremists outlaws resorted to indiscriminate firing upon the police which retaliated by the police force. The informant thereafter detected after cease fire that one of the constables had sustained gun shot injury in his leg. The informant with the police party made extensive search of the place of occurrence and in course of search several explosive materials and other incriminating articles including firearms and documents were recovered. In the meantime, the informant heard another sound of blast at some distance and then proceeded with the police force in the direction of the blast where there also held exchange of fire between the police force and extremists. However, finding that the police was mounting pressure by constant firing, the M.C.C. outlaws retreated and escaped in the forest. In the said firing two police personnel succumbed sustaining gun shots injuries fired from the side of the extremists. By giving the list of the incriminating articles including bombs and various literature recovered from the place of occurrence in the self-statement of the informant, Barwadih P.S. Case No. 48 of 2006 was registered against as many as 100 named accused persons and more than 100 unknown extremists. 3. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it would transpire from perusal of the FIR that one' Mukesh Ji was made an accused in the instant case without giving his parentage and address alongwith other accused. 3. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it would transpire from perusal of the FIR that one' Mukesh Ji was made an accused in the instant case without giving his parentage and address alongwith other accused. The Investigating Officer without identifying and established identity of the said Mukesh Ji submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner stating that his alias name was Mukesh Ji though he was popularly known as Mukesh Yadav @ Rajdeo Yadav. 4. The petitioner took the alibi that the occurrence as alleged as narrated by the informant had taken place on 22.8.2006 whereas the petitioner was already lodged in Dalgonganj Jail in connection with Lesliganj P.S. Case No. 78 of 2004 much prior to the alleged occurrence since 2004 therefore, his involvement in the instant case was next to impossible. 5. Advancing his ,arguments the learned counsel submitted that in course of search, documents were recovered from the place of occurrence which indicated that Mouser (Pistol) was allocated to one Mukesh Ji on 11.8.2006. Relying upon such entry in the document/diary the petitioner was implicated without verifying his identity and such entry has got no evidentiary value. Almost all the witnesses of the case diary were the members of the S.T.F. and no independent witness could be examined in course of investigation by the 1.0. However, Mr. Singh pointed out with reference to the paragraph 34 of the case diary that one Rakesh Kumar Mehta overheard the name of 'Mukesh Ji' in course of exchange of fire and assuming such statement as true conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained and considering these aspects the petitioner may be discharged. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Hatim, the learned A.P.P. opposed the contention and submitted that the petitioner was remained (sic) in the instant case on 18.11.2008 and charge-sheet was submitted against him and the co-accused for the alleged various offences. However, the learned A.P.P. submitted that it would be too earlier to hold the petitioner innocent in view of the materials available in the case diary and on the record. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view of the nature of the allegations and prima facie material pointed out against the petitioner I do not find it to be a fit case for consideration of the prayer for discharge of the petitioner. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view of the nature of the allegations and prima facie material pointed out against the petitioner I do not find it to be a fit case for consideration of the prayer for discharge of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 3.11.2009 passed in S.T. No. 87 of 2009 is well discussed which does not call for interference. There being no merit, this Criminal Revision is dismissed.