DHANESWAR MALLIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case rare in its nature having come to notice in this revision, the same is disposed of with reasons at the stage of admission.

(2.) Champabati lodged information in Jajpur Road Police-station that Dharanidhar (accused) and others kidnapped her daughter Kumari Minati on 5-9-1989 at about 10 a.m. in a car and at the time of interception by her two sons Padmalochan and Trilochan, they were threatend of assault by accused persons. Registering it as First Information Report, police conducted investigation. In course of investigation, petitioners were examined and their statements were recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. From these statements, it is revealed that petitioners were witnesses to occurrence. Charge-sheet having been filed against five accused persons, petitioners filed an application before learned Judicial Magistrate to record their statements under S. 164, Cr.P.C., since they did not implicate accused Jitendra to have participated in the crime and investigating offficer with mala fides and ulterior motive mentioned in their statements about involvement of Jitendra.

(3.) From the impugned order it is seen that at instance of investigating officer statements of four witnesses including that of the victim girl have already been recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate exercised his discretion not to accept the prayer which is grievance of petitioners.