Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1164 (JHR)

Indradeo Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge,III, Chatra, in Sessions Trial No.214 of 2013, arising out of Rajpur P.S. Case No.8 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No.142 of 2010 whereby discharge application preferred by the petitioners for their discharge, has been rejected. 3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that initially first information report was instituted against the husband and in-laws of the informant, but after investigation, without any reason, final form had been submitted in their favour and the petitioners have been charge sheeted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time of acceptance of the final form, the informant was never noticed by the learned court below. It has also been stated that the house of the petitioners are adjacent to the house of the named accused persons and they being Gotias, cannot lead to the prosecution of the petitioners on some frivolous grounds. 4. It has also been stated that the petitioners and the accused persons are on an inimical terms with respect to land dispute, for which a Title Suit has already been filed, which led to filing a false case against the petitioners. 5. It has been submitted that on the basis of mere suspicion of the petitioners being present in the place of occurrence, would not lead to conviction of the petitioners and these facts have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and as such, the order dated 18.11.2016 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. It appears that the first information report was instituted on the allegation against the husband and in-laws of the deceased that the deceased was tortured and done to death in the house of Bandhan Singh. Initially, the first information report was instituted against eight named accused persons, but final form was submitted against those persons and the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners, which led the learned trial court take cognizance on 28.01.2012 for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the petitioners have been implicated on suspicion. 8. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the petitioners have been implicated on suspicion. 8. It further appears from the perusal of the impugned order that since the husband and his brother were working in another State at the time of occurrence and parents-in-law and the brother-in-law were working in the field, the same led to submission of the final form by the investigating officer. It appears that the witnesses have stated about sour relation of the family of Bandhan Singh, who is the father-in-law of the deceased and the petitioners, for which a Title Suit is still pending and since, several of the petitioners were seen at the place of occurrence on the relevant point of time, the same led to grave suspicion against the petitioners of being involved in committing murder of the deceased. Faced with the background of such a strong circumstance, as could be deciphered from the perusal of the case diary, the trial court rejected the application preferred by the petitioners for their discharge. 9. The circumstances, which have been enumerated above, do lead this Court to come to a conclusion that there being a strong suspicion against the petitioners for committing murder of the deceased, the trial court vide order dated 18.11.2016 had rightly rejected the discharge application preferred by the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.