Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 582 (JHR)

Damodar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-05-06

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
JUDGMENT Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No.77 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the present two petitioners for their discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been rejected and both the petitioners have been directed to appear physically on the next date for framing of charge against them. 2. Both the petitioners have been made accused in Tilaiya P.S. Case no. 09 of 2009 instituted under Section 302 I.P.C. and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act on the basis of the fardbeyan of one Chowkidar that on 08.01.2009 while he was going to police station for his duty, he came to know that a dead body of an unknown person is lying on the eastern side of an over bridge. It is also alleged that the said unknown person was killed by gunshot. The police after registering the said case took up the charge of investigation and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the two petitioners as indicated above. 3. It appears from the record that the case was committed to Court of Sessions where both the petitioners filed the petition under Section 227 of the Code for their discharge on the ground that without any cogent material or the evidence available in the case diary, the court took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The court below after providing opportunity to the petitioners as well as the State came to the conclusion that there appears to be strong prima facie circumstantial evidence for presuming that the accused persons/petitioners have committed the offence of murder as has been alleged by the prosecution, hence rejected the prayer of the two petitioners. The learned Principal Sessions Judge in the impugned order dealt with the submissions of the petitioners and also referred various paragraphs of the case diary before coming to the said conclusion. 4. The learned Principal Sessions Judge in the impugned order dealt with the submissions of the petitioners and also referred various paragraphs of the case diary before coming to the said conclusion. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and in fact the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons and these two petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case on the ground of enmity and circumstances appearing against them though during investigation, the police failed to collect any direct evidence showing their complicity in the crime. It was also submitted that mere statement of one or two witnesses that the deceased had stayed in the house of the petitioners would not mean that the petitioners have participated in the alleged crime. 5. Contrary to the above submissions, the learned Addl. P.P. submitted that the witnesses examined during investigation, as incorporated in paragraphs 30 to 34 of the case diary, have all stated about the involvement of these two petitioners in the alleged crime. Hence, the order impugned needs no interference at this stage when meticulous examination of the evidences available on the record is not permissible. 6. It is not necessary to go into the details of the materials collected during investigation whether or not petitioners have been implicated falsely, may be decided in the trial and cannot be decided at this stage of framing of charge. It is well settled that at the stage of consideration of the matter under Section 227 of the Code, this Court has to consider only prima facie case or sufficient materials to raise grave suspicion against the petitioners and their complicity in the crime. In Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [ (2010) 9 SCC 368 ] while considering the very same provision i.e. framing of charge and discharge of accused under Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 19 of the judgment held as follows:- “19. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not.” 7. From the above ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, in that event, it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of consideration of the matter under Section 227 of the Code, the evidences are not to be weighed and appreciated in the same as is done at the trial. It is also not possible at this stage to make any roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter. Even if, I look into the paragraphs 30 to 34 of the case diary relying upon which, the court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioners, I find that there is sufficient materials against the petitioners to frame charge against them. The name of the two petitioners transpired in the investigation. It has come in the case diary that petitioner no.2-Laxmi Devi had called the deceased on telephone on 07.01.2009 and the deceased in turn had telephonically informed one of the witness Vikash Singh in the same night that he has stayed in the house of Laxmi Devi-petitioner no.2 and in the very next day, the dead body of the deceased was found. The court below has rightly concluded that there appears to be strong prima faice circumstantial evidence for presuming that the petitioners have committed the offence of murder as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, in my view, there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any cogent ground to interfere in the order impugned. Hence, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisonal jurisdiction. 8. Hence, in my view, there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any cogent ground to interfere in the order impugned. Hence, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisonal jurisdiction. 8. The revision application thus, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.