MAHMUD ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is against the order dated 12.8.1987 passed by Shri R.N. Chakraborty, Sessions Judge, Silchar, summoning the petitioners under Sections 302/149 IPC during the trial of the Sessions Case No. 100/ 86.

(2.) On 16.11.1984 an F.I.R. was made by one Mustt. Maburunnessa stating that at 11 A.M. while her husband Jamiruddin was reaping ripe paddy along with Shar cropper, Atiut Rahman, Nenamani, Majibur Rahman, Fakrul and 2/3 others took him to their house, tied him and severely assaulted him. On this F.I.R. the Silchar Police Station registered Case No. 95/84 under Sections 342/326/34 I.P.C. Subsequently, Jamiruddin died and, therefore, the police added Section 302 I.P.C. to the case. In the investigation, police recorded the statement of 13 witnesses and submitted charge sheet under Sections 147/342/302 I.P.C. against the four persons, whose names were disclosed as accused in the F.I.R., to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar. The petitioners were not sent up in the charge sheet. The informant, therefore, filed an application on 16.7.1986 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar to include the petitioners as accused before committing the case to Sessions Court. It was stated in the application that the statements made by witness before the police disclosed that the petitioners were also involved in the crime. The Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded this application to Sessions Judge, Silchar for consideration at the time of inquiry for taking cognizance of the case.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the four accused persons who were sent up in the charge sheet. At that time he omitted to consider the informants application. On 12.8.1 987, the learned Sessions Judge examined 4 (four) of the prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Maburunnessa (informant), wife of the deceased, P.W. 2 Subenaj Begum, daughter of the deceased, P. W. 3 Fareekuddin, son of the deceased and P.W. 4 Suretonnessa, mother of the deceased. The deposition of these witnesses again disclosed that the petitioners participated in the crime. On this date, the prosecution moved the application dated 16.7.1987 to include the petitioners as accused. The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution witnesses had named the petitioners-accused in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police and they have again named these persons in their evidence at the trial. Being satisfied that there are materials against the petitioners, he by his order dated 12.8.1987 summoned the petitioners for trial together with the accused against whom the charges were framed. Hence, this revision by these 3 (three) petitioners.