SUKUMAR MAJHI Vs. PRAN KRISHNA MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule is at the instance of the informant Petitioner, Sukumar Majhi, directed against an order dated January 17, 1973, passed by Sri S.N. Mallick, Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, in C.R. Case No. 943 of 1972.

(2.) A short point of law arises for consideration in this rule as to whether after a charge -sheet in a case is submitted in Court following an investigation under chapter XIV, Code of Criminal Procedure, there can be a re -investigation in the matter upon the complaint of the de facto complainant to the effect that the investigation made has been incomplete and perfunctory affecting thereby the merits of the charge -sheet submitted.

(3.) The facts necessary for appreciating the point at issue are put in a short compass. On October 25, 1972, the informant, Sukumar Majhi, lodged a F.I.R. at the Tamluk P.S. against the accused opposite parties for offences under Ss. 323/324 and 326/34 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case briefly is that on October 25, 1972, at about 6 -45 a.m. while the Petitioner's brothers were cutting earth for carrying the same to construct a hut in their homestead the accused opposite parties came there in a body armed with deadly weapons, viz. chouki, lathi and katari and objected to the cutting and removal of earth from the plot concerned. Gunadhar Majhi, who was a doctor, and Sukumar Majhi, who is the informant, therefore came to the place which is adjacent to their house and protested against the highhanded conduct of the accused parties when they assaulted Gunadhar, his two daughters Kamala and Pramila, and also his son, the informant, causing several injuries. The prosecution case, further, is that Gunadhar had head injuries caused by lathi blows and his left ring finger was chopped off. Sukumar lost an ear and Kamala received an injury from chouki. Pramila Majhi received injuries from lathi blows on her right shoulder. Gunadhar became unconscious and had to be removed to the hospital where he remained as an indoor patient from October 25, 1972 to November 21, 1972. His dying declaration was sought to be recorded, but the same could not be done as he was unconscious. It is further alleged by the informant that, although the case was serious one, the O.C. of the Tamluk P.S., who is the I.O. in the case, did not arrest any of the accused persons who ultimately surrendered in the Court, and he did not also examine either Gunadhar or his two daughters although they received several injuries and are relevant eye -witnesses. On or about December 5, 1972, the Petitioner's father made a representation to the Addl. Superintendent of Police (Crime), Midnapore, drawing his attention to the perfunctory nature of the investigation and praying for a further and proper investigation. As no reply was received, a further representation dated December 13, 1972, was made to the Hon'ble Minister -in -charge of Police (Home), Government of West Bengal, enclosing a copy of the representation earlier addressed to the Addl. S.P., Midnapore. The S.P. of Midnapore thereupon was directed by the Hon'ble Minister to take proper and legal action immediately by his order dated December 15, 1972. On receipt of the said order, the S.P. directed on December 20, 1972, the G.I., Tamluk, for a proper investigation. The S.P., Midnapore, further directed the S.D.P.O., Tamluk, to look into the matter on December 29, 1972. The I.O. submitted the charge -sheet before the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, against the accused opposite parties under Sec. 325 Indian Penal Code on January 8, 1973. The Petitioner, who was aggrieved by the said charge -sheet, moved an application before the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, setting out material facts and stating, inter alia, that Gunadhar Majhi, amongst others, was not even examined by the I.O. and prayed ultimately for a month's adjournment to enable the State to take legal action for further investigation as referred to in the petition. The learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate ultimately by his order dated January 17, 1973, held that the petition was misconceived but nonetheless directed the case diary to be put up at the time of framing of the charges, fixing February 21, 1973, as the date for the said purpose. Being aggrieved thereby, the de facto complainant Petitioner Sukumar Majhi preferred the present revisional application and a rule was issued on February 6, 1973. Along with the rule an order for ad interim stay, as prayed for, was also granted.