Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 857 (JHR)

Aarti Rani @ Atti Rani v. State of Jharkhand

2011-09-12

H.C.MISHRA

body2011
ORDER By the Court.- Cr. M.P. No. 303 of 2009 and Cr. Revision No. 187 of 2009 arise from the same impugned order as such both the cases are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned A. P. P. for the Prosecution. 3. The petitioners in both the cases are aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2009 passed by learned. Additional Sessions Judge. F.T.C.-I. Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No. 343 of 2006. whereby the Court below exercising the power under Section 319. Cr PC. has directed that the informant Arti Rani the I.O. of the case-S.I. Indradeo Ram and Deputy S.P. Ashwini Kumar Sinha be added as accused in this case and the office was directed to issue process for appearance of the aforesaid persons for facing trial along with other accused. 4. Informant Arti Rani has challenged the impugned order in Cr. M.P. No. 303 of 2009 and Ashwini Kumar Sinha who was the Deputy S.P. has challenged the impugned order in Cr. Revision No. 187 of 2009. It appears that S.1. Indardeo Ram has not challenged the said order. 5. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal as no cogent evidence whatsoever was brought on record to show the complicity of these petitioners in any manner in commission of the crime. Learned counsel further submitted that the Court below has vividly discussed the evidence brought on record during the trial but there is no material therein against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ashwini Kumar Sinha has further submitted that this petitioner had acted in discharge of his official duties but no sanction for prosecution was obtained. Learned counsels accordingly submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. Learned counsel for the She submitted that there is no illegality in the order and the same cannot be interfered with. 7. After having heard learned counsels and upon going through the records. I find that the Court below has discussed the evidence of PW 1 Aarti Rani. PW 2 Abhinav Kumar, PW 3 Pranav Kumar. 6. Learned counsel for the She submitted that there is no illegality in the order and the same cannot be interfered with. 7. After having heard learned counsels and upon going through the records. I find that the Court below has discussed the evidence of PW 1 Aarti Rani. PW 2 Abhinav Kumar, PW 3 Pranav Kumar. PW 4 Hasim PW 5 Pardeshi Das, PW 6 Murli Mahto PW 7 Sunil Mahto, PW 8 Binod Kumar Rajak and PW 9 Akhilesh Kumar from which it is apparent that they have not stated anything about these petitioners. 8. So far as PW 10 S.I. Indrado Ram is concerned. he is the La. in the case and when he was examined, certain Court Questions were put to him. The deposition of this witness has been brought on record from which it appears that the Court had asked him whether he had found the version of Arti Devi to be correct; whereupon the La. answered that her version was not correct. The Court further questioned, whether it was investigated as to why she was not giving correct version; whereupon the I.O. answered that she was in love with accused and as such she was not giving the correct facts. The Court further put the question to the I.O. as to whether during investigation he found the hands of any other person in the crime apart from accused; whereupon, the I.O. deposed that the accused had committed the murder with the help of his maternal aunt (petitioner Aarti Rani). The Court further questioned the I.O. as to why he had not made her an accused; whereupon the I.O. answered that he had not arrayed her as an accused as he was asked not to do so by Ashwini Kwnar Sinha (the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 187 of 2009), who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police at the relevant time. 9. It appears that only on the aforesaid evidence the Court below has directed that the informant Arti Devi the I.O.-S.L Indradeo Ram and Deputy S.P. Ashwini Kumar Sinha be added as accused in the case exercising the power under Section 319 of the Cr PC. Section 319. Cr PC reads as follows : "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-(l) Where in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence. Section 319. Cr PC reads as follows : "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-(l) Where in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence. it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) ....... (3) ....... (4) ......." The very opening words of said section are. "Where in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence it appears from the evidence it is apparent from the impugned order that no evidence whatsoever against these petitioners was brought on record either in inquiry or in trial, except the evidence of the I.O. Even the I.O. had not deposed any thing before the Court as to what evidence he had collected during the investigation to show that there was any love affair between the accused and the petitioner Aarti Rani and as to actually what evidence did he find during investigation to show that this petitioner had helped the accused in commission of the crime. Merely on the basis of the evidence of the I.O. that during investigation he had learnt that there was a love affair between them and that Aarti Devi had• helped the accused in committing the murder. without disclosing the source of these information’s, in my considered view, there was no• evidence on record so as to empower the Court below under Section 319, Cr PC to add the petitioners as accused in this case. 10. Accordingly. I find that there was no evidence whatsoever, brought on record during trial to show the complicity of these petitioners in commission of the crime as no material witness has stated any thing about these petitioners. Only on the basis of answers given to the Court's questions by the I.O. as detailed above in absence of any evidence corroborating the e answers, the Court below has directed these petitioners to face the trial with the other co-accused, which is absolutely illegal wholly without jurisdiction and without any application of judicial mind. 11. In my considered view, for the aforesaid reasons the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. In my considered view, for the aforesaid reasons the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. As such, both tl:1ese applications are allowed and the impugned order dated 9.2.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.I, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No. 343 of 2006 is, hereby set-aside. Even though the S.I. Indardeo Ram has chosen not to challenge the impugned order, but this order shall apply in his case also. Application allowed.