Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 77 (JHR)

Brother Francis Umor v. State of Jharkhand

2013-01-15

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the A.P.P. 2. Initially this application was filed for quashing of the order dated 16.1.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2012 (Chakardharpur Rail P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011) whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 367 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been taken against the petitioner. Subsequently, by way of Interlocutory Application the order dated 24.7.2012, passed by learned Additional Judge-II, Chaibasa was sought to be quashed under which application filed under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code for discharging him from the accusation was rejected. 3. It appears that one Subrato Das, the Informant while was traveling in Shalimar Express on 17.10.2011, saw this petitioner in company of three minor children who were being taken by this petitioner to Raipur, Chattisgarh. The manner in which this petitioner was behaving with those children, it was not liked by the co-passengers. The manner in which the petitioner was behaving with those boys and his gesture raised suspicion that those three boys are being taken somewhere after being kidnapped by this petitioner. 4. On such allegation, the case was registered as Chakardharpur Rail P.S. Case No.13 of 2011 under Section 367 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 5. The matter was investigated upon. After completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet, upon which cognizance was taken on 16.1.2012 of the offences punishable under Section 367 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. On Police paper being furnished, an application was filed under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code for discharging the petitioner from the accusation. That application was rejected and therefore, this application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accepting the entire allegations to be true and the material collected during investigation, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence whatsoever, what to talk of commission of offence under Section 367 of the. 6. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accepting the entire allegations to be true and the material collected during investigation, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence whatsoever, what to talk of commission of offence under Section 367 of the. Indian Penal Code and also under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and thereby, the court certainly committed illegality in rejecting the prayer for discharge as so-called victim boys have never said anything in their statements made under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code that they were being taken somewhere after being kidnapped. That apart nothing has come during investigation even to show the commission of offence, as alleged, rather the material which has been collected during investigation is otherwise, whereby, it got transpired that this petitioner has been running an institution in the name of Pilgrim of Charity. Raipur, where destitutes are being imparted with vocational training so as to make them self-dependant and this fact has been confirmed by the I.O. from the landlord and the landlady, where, the petitioner was running his Institution and for that purpose those boys who were found traveling alongwith the petitioner in the train were being taken to Raipur and under the circumstances, certainly no offence is made out under Section 367 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner, by alluring those boys, had been taking them somewhere which fact even has been supported by those boys in their 164 statement of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the boys whose statements have been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. never seems to have stated in their 164 statement as has been annexed as Annexure-2 series, that they were being taken to Raipur after being kidnapped rather the statements what are there of those boys are that they are being taken to Raipur for providing some kind of work. 9. Further nothing seems to have been brought on record to show the culpability of the petitioner in any manner in the commission of the offence under Section 367 of the I.P.C. 10. 9. Further nothing seems to have been brought on record to show the culpability of the petitioner in any manner in the commission of the offence under Section 367 of the I.P.C. 10. It be mentioned that nowhere it is the case of the prosecution that those three boys were being taken somewhere after being kidnapped for the purpose of either to cause grievous hurt or for the purpose of slavery. At the same time, nothing seems to have come during investigation that the minor boys were being taken for the purpose of any hazardous employment and to withhold the earnings made by the persons said to have been kidnapped. 11. Under the circumstances, I do find that the prosecution has never come with the case nor anything seems to be there to even show the commission of the offence either under Section 367 of the Indian Penal Code or for commission of the offence under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and, therefore, the trial court seems to have committed illegality in rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 24.7.2012 under which prayer for discharge was rejected is hereby, quashed. 13. Consequently, the petitioner is discharged from the accusation. 14. Thus, this application stands allowed.