HARIBANSH SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Suraj Narayan Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dilip Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Shri Pathak Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the informant, though informant has not been impleaded as opposite party in the present case.

(2.) Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of part of the order dated 14.8.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court 1st, Bettiah, West Champaran in Sessions Trial No.746 of 2007, whereby the learned trial court has allowed petition filed under Sections 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and summoned the petitioners to face trial with accused persons, who were already put on trial.The petitioners were not named in the F.I.R. F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of one Shri Wakil Dewan, son of deceased. In the F.I.R., the informant had made specific assertion that five F.I.R. named accused persons had done to death his father after intercepting him in a mango orchard. The informant had not claimed to be an eye witness, but he had disclosed that he was informed by the eye witnesses regarding the occurrence. After registering F.I.R., police started investigation. Immediately thereafter, the police recorded statement of witnesses including three witnesses, who had deposed during the trial and implicated the petitioners as accused persons with an allegation that they had also actively participated in the crime.

(3.) The present petition was hard side by side of Cr. Misc. No.50179 of 2008 in which case diary was received as per earlier judicial order. Accordingly, while haring the present petition, case diary was referred and noticed. On perusal of the case diary, it is evident that all the witnesses had made consistent statement that five F.I.R. named accused persons had committed the occurrence. Number of independent witnesses had also corroborated the same. Three witnesses, who have been examined during the trial, were close relatives of informant and amongst them, some were witnesses to the F.I.R. also. After conducting investigation, police submitted charge sheet against five accused persons. Of course, during investigation, role of petitioners were also examined, but nothing could be brought on record to implicate them and as such they were exonerated. After submission of charge sheet against five accused persons, cognizance order was passed and case was committed to the court of Sessions. During the trial, three witnesses, who are close relatives of the informant, come out with a new case in which they asserted that besides other accused persons, three petitioners had also actively participated in the crime. Thereafter, petition under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the prosecution. Learned trial court, after hearing the parties, partly allowed the petition and summoned three petitioners to face trial.