Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 560 (JHR)

Helen Tirkey v. State of Bihar

2014-04-30

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
Order H.C. Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.1999 passed by the learned VIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 611 of 1997, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for discharge has been rejected by the Trial Court below. 3. The present case was admitted by order dated 21.06.1999 and the operation of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court was stayed. The Lower Court Record called for in this case reveals that the case relates to the murder of the brother of the petitioners Jeevan Tirkey and Jeesan Tirkey, whose dead body was recovered from a well. The F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the written application of the A.S.I. of the Chutia Police Station, wherein it is stated that on 19.9.19996 he was informed that a dead body of unknown person was seen in the well, whereupon the dead body was recovered with a stone tied to it. The dead body could not be identified and accordingly, the case was instituted against unknown, which was registered as Chutia P.S. Case No. 67 of 1996, for the offence under Sections 302/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code. During course of investigation the confessional statement of the petitioner No.1 Helen Tirkey was recorded, who is the wife of the petitioner, Jeevan Tirkey. She has stated that the deceased was her brother-in-law, who in the night of 16.9.1996 in the drunken state tried to commit rape upon her, whereupon she pushed him and strangulated him causing his death. Thereafter, her husband and the other brother-in-law, came there and they threw the dead body in a well, from which it was recovered. On the basis of the confessional statement of the petitioner No. 1, Helen Tirkey, all the three petitioners were made accused in the case and after investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against them. It appears that after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Session, where the petitioners filed their application for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order. 4. The impugned order shows that the statement of the petitioner No.1 Helen Tirkey, was also recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she has completely denied the fact of giving any confessional statement before the police. 4. The impugned order shows that the statement of the petitioner No.1 Helen Tirkey, was also recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she has completely denied the fact of giving any confessional statement before the police. The Court below also found from the post mortem report of the deceased that the death had been caused due to drowning and had opined that the dead was homicidal in nature. Based on these materials, the Court below has rejected the application for discharge, finding that there are ample materials against the petitioners for framing the charge under Sections 302/ 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. I have also gone through the Lower Court Record, as also the case diary. The post mortem report available in the record shows that there was no external or internal injury on the dead body of the deceased and the cause of death was found to be drowning. Though in her confessional statement the petitioner No. 1 Helen Tirkey has stated she had caused his death by strangulating him, but this fact is not corroborated by the post mortem report of the deceased, in which no external or internal injury was found on the deceased and the death has been found to have been caused due to drowning. This apart, the confessional statement has not led to any recovery and in her statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner No. 1 has clearly stated that she had not given any confessional statement before the police. Her statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is also available on the record. The case dairy available in the record clearly shows that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and there is absolutely no material in the case diary against the petitioners except the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner No. 1, which has not led to any recovery. The witnesses whose statements were recorded by the police, including the family members of the deceased, have only stated that the character of the deceased was bad. He was criminal in nature and he was also jailed earlier and his dead body was recovered. The witnesses have not stated anything about the occurrence. There is one F.S.L. report on the record about the examination of the viscera of the deceased, which shows that no poison could be detected in the viscera. 6. He was criminal in nature and he was also jailed earlier and his dead body was recovered. The witnesses have not stated anything about the occurrence. There is one F.S.L. report on the record about the examination of the viscera of the deceased, which shows that no poison could be detected in the viscera. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and there is absolutely no material available in the record against the petitioners, except the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner No. 1, which has no evidentiary value. Learned counsel has submitted that compelling the petitioners to undergo trial shall be only an abuse of the process of the Court as there is not even the remote chance of securing the conviction of the petitioners. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand has opposed the prayer, submitting that there is the confessional statement of the petitioner No. 1, and accordingly, it cannot be said that there is no material against the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the material available against the petitioners, the impugned order passed by the Court below suffers from no illegality/irregularity, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 8. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the occurrence is of the year 1996 itself, i.e., more than 13 years old. It is also apparent from the record that there is nothing in the case diary against the petitioners except the confessional statement of the petitioner No. 1, which has also been denied by the said petitioner in her statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Even according to the confessional statement of the petitioner No.1, the death of the deceased was caused by strangulation, which fact is not corroborated by the post mortem report of the deceased, which shows that there was no external or internal injury on the deceased and the death of the deceased was caused due to drowning. This apart even the F.S.L. report also shows that nothing was found in the viscera of the deceased creating any suspicion against the petitioners. This apart even the F.S.L. report also shows that nothing was found in the viscera of the deceased creating any suspicion against the petitioners. The case diary clearly shows that apart from the above, there is absolutely no material against the petitioners and accordingly, compelling the petitioners to undergo the trial at this belated stage shall only amount to abuse of the process of the Court, as there is nothing in the record to rope in the petitioners to the occurrence even remotely. In my considered view, for the forgoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned order dated 09.03.1999 passed by the learned VIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 611 of 1997, is hereby, set aside. As no useful purpose is going to be served by remanding the case back directing the Court below to pass the order afresh, the petitioners stand discharged. This application is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith.