Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 326 (JHR)

Shailendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2013-03-06

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
ORDER Heard the parties. 1. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 15.6.2007 passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 2 of 2006 (G.R. No. 69 of 2006) whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Sections 217 and 221 of Indian Penal Code has been taken against these petitioners. 2. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that besides these petitioners against whom cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Sections 217 and 221 of Indian Penal Code has been taken, the court has also taken cognizance of the offences by the same order under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the accused-Hayat Ali Ansari, Firoj Ansari, Ramesh Sahu and Jakir Ansari in a case lodged by Punam Toppo alleging therein that while she was sitting under a tree, four accused persons namely, Hayat Ali Ansari, Firoj Ansari, Ramesh Sahu and Jakir Ansari put her on fire in order to kill her who subsequently succumbed to injury. When Punam Toppo had come before the Officer In-charge of Ormanjhi Police Station to lodge the case, one Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre and B.D.O., Ormanjhi were sitting over there, and in their presence statement was given by Punam Toppo. Just before that Mairun Nisha had lodged a case against Punam Toppo wherein it has been alleged that Punam Toppo had assaulted her and that while Mairun Nisha along with her husband-Jakir Ansari was in the police station, Punam Toppo came and lodged a case putting allegation against Jakir Ansari and other three persons that they had put her on fire though Jakir Ansari was sitting right in front of the Officer In-charge, Ormanjhi. The case lodged by Punam Toppo was registered under Sections 307 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code against all those four accused persons. While the matter was under investigation, a complaint was made before the then Chief Judicial Magistrate by the husband of Punam Toppo to the effect that the Investigating Officer has not been arresting the accused persons. Neither he is recording the statement of B.D.O. or the Medical Officer, Ormanjhi nor the statement of the victim is being recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 3. Neither he is recording the statement of B.D.O. or the Medical Officer, Ormanjhi nor the statement of the victim is being recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 3. It was further pointed out that when the matter was taken up for investigation, the police did find that Punam Toppo while was sitting under a tree, her Sari caught fire but no-one was seen fleeing from there and thereby the Investigating Officer suspected some foul play in the statement made by Punam Toppo who in course of treatment died. Thereafter statement of the Medical Officer as well as the statement of the B.D.O. was recorded but they did not state anything against the accused persons. In such situation, allegation made by Punam Toppo against the aforesaid four persons was not found to be true, as one of the accused persons namely, Jakir Ansari, was found sitting at the police station when Punam Toppo had come to the police station to lodge the case and that no-one had seen any of these accused persons near the tree or from running away from there where Punam Toppo was allegedly put on fire. In such situation, final form was submitted whereby all those accused persons were exonerated from the accusation. Thereupon, a protest petition was filed by the husband of the deceased-Punam Toppo upon which cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was taken against the aforesaid four persons. 4. At the same time, the court also took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 217 and 221 of Indian Penal Code against these petitioners, who are Dy. 4. At the same time, the court also took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 217 and 221 of Indian Penal Code against these petitioners, who are Dy. S.P., Officer In-charge and Investigating Officer not on the basis of the statement made in the complaint petition against the petitioners but on the basis of the personal knowledge, as the court time to time had given direction to the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also the statements of the witnesses which according to counsel was not complied with but the record would go to show that all the orders passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate had been complied with which would be evident from the statement made in the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the statement of deceased-Punam Toppo had been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and even the statement of the Medical Officer and the B.D.O., Ormanjhi had been recorded by the Investigating Officer and thereby no order was there which has not been complied with. 5. It was further pointed out that it is true that when a case was registered under Section 307, the Investigating Officer did release all the four accused persons on taking P.R. Bond but the reason for that was that one of the accused persons namely, Jakir Ansari, was found sitting at the police station who along with three others had been alleged to have put deceased-Punam Toppo on fire and further for the reasons that none of the accused persons were seen either standing near the tree where occurrence is said to have been taken place or running away from there which was sufficient for the Investigating Officer to suspect foul play in the statement made by the deceased and in such situation, there does not appear to be any material for constituting offence either under Section 217 or under Section 221 of Indian Penal Code and that the question of committing offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by these accused persons never arises. 6. 6. The aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners regarding compliance of the direction given by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate in the matter of recording of statement either under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or under Section 161 Cr.P.C. get substantiated from the statement made in the counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 164 Cr.P.C. though there has been delay in recording the statement but that delay did occur for the reasons that the Investigating Officer was on leave for certain period. Further, it has been stated that the statements of the Medical Officer and the B.D.O., Ormanjhai have also been recorded by the Investigating Officer. 7. The explanation given by the petitioners for releasing the accused persons on P R Bond goes to show that there has not been intentional omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to release them on bail as according to the Investigating Officer there was no reason to suspect their hands in the alleged offence. 8. In such situation, the court can certainly be said to have committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 217 and 221 against these petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 2 of 2006 (G.R. No. 69 of 2006) including the order dated 15.6.2007 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Sections 217 and 221 of Indian Penal Code against these petitioners, is hereby quashed. 10. In the result this application stands allowed.