RAM EKBAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE informant -petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 6.06.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II in S.T.No.22/07 by which the accused opposite party no.2 has been discharged from the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the I.P.C.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6.12.2003 Anjani Kumar Singh (deceased), son of the informant was working as a contractor in the I.O.C. Refinery. There has been dispute six months ago with regard to the tender with the owner of Saga Enterprises and its partner Ram Bilash Singh @ Doctor. The tender was given to the deceased. Due to this, Ram Bilash and Shamshul, owner of Saga Enterprises were threatening the deceased and were demanding Rs.5,00,000/ - failing which he would be killed. The deceased used to convey this matter to the father (informant) and other family members. On 9.12.2003 at about 8.30 A.M. the deceased was killed and his dead body was thrown at Gate No.1 of the I.O.C. It was suspected by the informant that Samshul and Ram Bilash Singh with the help of other co -accused have killed his son Anjani Kumar Singh. On the fardbeyan of the informant, Barauni (Refinery) P.S.Case No.425/03 was instituted against both the accused. After investigation, the case was found true against the accused Ram Bilash Singh @ Doctor, Samshul and Non -F.I.R. accused Balmiki Singh (opposite party no.2) and the charge -sheet was submitted showing Ram Bilash Singh and Balmiki Singh absconding and investigation against the accused Samshul was kept pending. The cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. A petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the accused Ram Bilash Singh @ Doctor on 22.03.2007, which was rejected by the impugned order, whereas, a petition filed on behalf of the accused Balmiki Singh, opposite party no.2 under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge on 22.05.2007 has been allowed and it has been held that there is insufficient evidence for framing of charge against Balmiki Singh and the petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the Balmiki Singh has been allowed.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from paragraph nos. 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 63 and 88 of the case diary, it appears that suspicion has been raised against the accused Balmiki Singh about his involvement in the occurrence. He has further submitted that at the beginning of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. At the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion against the accused giving rise to presumption of his guilt, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In support of his contention, he has referred to a decision in the case of Rana Ramdeo Singh & Ors. Versus The State of Bihar & anr. reported in 2000(4) PLJR 405. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that so far Balmiki Singh is concerned; none of the witnesses have expressed any suspicion regarding his involvement in the alleged occurrence. The witnesses have categorically stated that Balmiki Singh is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police.