RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 28.9.1996, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla, whereby and where under he rejected the petitioner's application for discharge in connection with Sessions Trial case No.53/96 which was registered as P.S. case No. 192/95 under Sections 302/201/120B/34/396/412, IPC.

(2.) The short facts of the prosecution case as alleged that one Chaukidar lodged an FIR against some unknown persons stating therein that in the morning No. 16.9.1995, he received an information that a dead body was lying in the village Bhandari Tolal Toli by the side of the road in the pond. The informant went there and saw the dead-body which was in decomposed state and he was unable to identify the dead body. He was also informed that another dead- body was lying in the field and the said dead body was also decomposed and was not identified and thereafter, he lodged the FIR against unknown for the offence under Sections 302/201/34, IPC. The police investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and a petition for discharge was filed by the petitioner which was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 28.9.1996. Hence, this revision case.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that the petitioner was falsely dragged in this case which will be evident itself from the injury report (Annexure-2) as the petitioner was brutally assaulted by the police and on the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, the Jail doctor had examined the petitioner and found as many as 14 injuries on his person. It is further submitted that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence and on mere suspicion the petitioner was apprehended in this case. It is further argued that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the wife of the deceased also admitted in paragraph 43 of the case diary that she has not seen as to who had killed her husband. It is further argued that one accused Basant Sao was apprehended in this case who made confessional statement that he came to know from one Bandhan Oraon that the petitioner used to say that the deceased got his licence of sugar cancelled and for which he would take revenge but Bandhan Oraon never apprehended in this case nor he has appeared. It is also submitted that the learned Court below wrongly quoted paragraph 241 of the case diary which is the error of record as there is no statement of Anil Mahali in paragraph 241 of the case diary, rather the statement of Anil Mahali was recorded in paragraph 251 of the case diary and he has said nothing against the petitioner. According to him, other-co-accused Dasrath Sao, who made confessional statement in paragraph 242 of the case diary, has also not named this petitioner.