PRADEEP KUMAR MEDINI ROY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the High Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should quash the charge-sheet filed in Court after completion of investigation by the police and direct the C. B. I. to re-inves- tigate into the case in the facts and circum- stances of this case.

(2.) An F. I. R. was lodged by one Padma Locha'n Sahu in Nilgiri P. S. alleging that Kumari Anitarani Sahu, the daughter of his brother late Purna Chandra Sahu, who was a minor aged about 13 years, had been raped and murdered between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on 17-6-1995. It was alleged in the F. I. R.that Kumari Anitarani Sahu, the daughter of his brother late Purna Chandra Sahu, who was a minor aged about 13 years, had been raped and murdered between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on 17-6-1995. It was alleged in the F. I. R. that Kumari Anitarani Sahu had gone to take bath in Nua Pokhari with his brother Jogeswar Sahu. She kept her dresses and soap on the tank embankment and went to Rajabagicha to attend to the call of the nature. When she did not return for more than half an hour, Jogeswar returned home and informed his mother and thereafter her mother searched Anita but .could not find her. At about 5.30 p.m., however, Anita was found lying dead in a "KIA" bush. She was lying naked facing the ground and there was heavy bleeding from her vagina, anus, chest, mouth and nose. The F. I. R. was registered as Nilgiri P. S. Case No. 63 of 1995 dated 17-6-1995 under Section 376/302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I. P.'C."}. The petitioner Pradeep Kumar Medini Roy was apprehended by the police on 20-6-1995 and forwarded to judicial custody on 21 -6-1995. Besides the petitioner, two other co-accused persons Sanatan Behara and Umesh Chandra Rana were also apprehended and forwarded to judicial custody. The accused persons were granted bail. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed in Court against all the three accused persons under Sections 376(2)(g), 377, 302, 201 read with 34 IPC

(3.) The petitioner Pradeep Kumar Medini Roy and Umesh Chandra Rana jumped bail and their attendance could not be procured within a reasonable time and only Sania alias Sanatan Behera was in custody. Hence, S. T. Case No. 192 of 1995 was split up and 'Sanatan Behera only was tried first for charges under Sections 376(2) (g), 377 and 302 read with 34 IPC. In the trial, the only eye-witness Abhimanyu Nayak stated that while the petitioner Pradeep Kumar Medini Roy was committing sexual intercourse on Anitarani, Umesh Chandra Rana alias Babu had caught hold of Anitarani and Sanatan Behara was found at a distance of 4 to 5 feet from the place of occurrence. The said eye-witness Abhimanyu Nayak further stated in the trial that when he went to the spot second time, he found accused Sanatan Behera going towards his house carrying a spade and that Sanatan Behara had been cultivating the land near the tank. On the aforesaid evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, Bhadrak held that there was no participation of the accused Sanatan Behera in any overt act in order to make him vicariously liable under Section 34 IPC for the offences under Sections 376 (2)(g), 377 and 302 IPC and acquitted him of the charges by judgment dated 28th May, 1998.