STATE Vs. SIKKA SUNA AND 2 ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROSECUTION case may be stated in brief. On 5 -3 -1964 at about 3 -30 p.m. the father of the deceased gave a missing report about his son. On 6 -3 -1964 at 8 p.m. he gave an unnatural death report after having traced out the wearing apparel of his son in between Hisikhal and Nirgundi. The entire corpse was not available. The upper portion of the head with one ear, a bunch of hair, a portion of the skull, some ribs and his belongings, such as, lenguti, a wrapper, a napkin, a tangi and a kati were found out. The father of the deceased identified the dead body as belonging to his son.

(2.) MR . Mohapatra contended that the Courts below were confusion regarding the scope and amplitude of the jurisdiction and powers of the Committing Court under Section 207A(6), Criminal Procedure Code. He contended that the Committing Court was not entitled to try the case and forestall the decision of the Court of Sessions and that the Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in discharging the accused despite the existence of the evidence of the eye -witnesses speaking to the murder. The contention requires careful examination. Section 207A(6) may be quoted When the evidence referred to in Sub -section (4) has been taken and the Magistrate has considered all the documents referred to in Section 173 and has, if necessary examined the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and given the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, such Magistrate shall, if he is of opinion that such evidence and documents disclose no grounds for committing the accused person for trial, record his reasons and discharge him, unless it appears to the Magistrate that such person should be tried before himself or some other Magistrate, in which case he shall proceed accordingly.

(3.) THE Courts below, in this case, have fallen into error in overlooking the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. The Committing Court is not a Court of trial but is a Court of inquiry. In this particular case, three eye -witnesses were available. Their evidence discloses a prima facie case. The Committing Court was, therefore, bound to commit the case under Sections 302, 201, 34 , Indian Penal Code to the Court of Sessions. It was not open to it to disbelieve the evidence of the eyewitnesses by an elaborate and painstaking process of examination. That would be the function of the Court, of Sessions. It might be that in the ultimate trial the Court of Sessions might take the same view which the Committing Court had taken But that is an altogether different matter. The point for examination at this stage is not whether the Committing Court arrived at the correct conclusion on the facts and circumstances of the case, but whether it had the jurisdiction to confer upon itself the powers to try the case which lay exclusively within the jurisdiction of a Court of Sessions. I am satisfied that the order of discharge is untenable and must be set aside.