MATIUR BISWAS Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been filed under section 401 and 482 of the Cr.PC praying for quashing of the proceeding being Raghunathgunj P.S. Case No. 84/2001 dated 09.08.2001 and the order dated 07.08.2004, passed by the Id. Additional Sessions Judge of the lst Fast Track Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad, whereby he directed to frame charge against the accused/ petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that one civilian, named Safique Sk. a resident of Mahaldarpara Village, expired at Lalgola Hospital as a result of gun shot injuries and for that Murshidabad P.S.UD Case No. 66 of 2001 dated 08.08.2001 was started against BSF officials and other personnel involved in the said firing incident. In order to counter the said case, on 09.08.2001 S.N. Goswami, company commander of the BSF lodged a complaint over the alleged incident. On the basis of that, Raghunathgunj P.S. Case No. 84 of 2001 was started against the accused persons. It has been alleged in the said FIR that while the BSF intercepted some persons, who were involved in cow smuggling, at that time the accused persons assaulted the BSF personnel with the intention to kill them and as such finding no other way out, the BSF officials opened fire and as a result of that one civilian died. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons including one Matiur Rahaman. The present petitioner's name is Matiur Biswas and not Matiur Rahaman and he is a member of the Gram Panchayat. Be that as it may, on the basis of the said chargesheet, Id. Sessions Judge was pleased to frame charge under sections 47, 148, 49, 186, 353,333,307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others, although there is no material whatsoever against the present petitioner. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order of framing of charge against the present petitioner and against the continuation of the said proceeding so far as the present petitioner is concerned, this revisional application has been filed praying for quashing of the entire proceeding or setting aside the order of framing of charge, so far as the present petitioner is concerned.

(3.) I have heard the submissions of the Id. Advocate for the petitioner and the Id. Advocate for the State. According to the Id. Advocate for the State, the Id. Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in framing the charge against the accused/petitioner, as there were materials against him. He further submits that from the statements of all the witnesses, as recorded under section 161.Cr.PC., it will appear that there is strong suspicion against the present petitioner so far as the commission of the offence is concerned. In this respect he has cited decision reported in AIR 1977 SC, Page 2018, State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh. As against this Id. Advocate for the petitioner cited decision reported in AIR 1990 SC page 1962, Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Ors., wherein this decision reported in AIR 1977 SC Page 2018(supra) was also considered. Be that as it may, the main contention of the petitioner is that although there is no material whatsoever against the present petitioner, still the Id. Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to frame the charge against him. In the decision reported in AIR 1977, SC Page 2018(supra) it has been held :