BABLU MEHTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Usha Kumari 1, learned APP for the State and Mr. Shamshul Hoda, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

(2.) The appeal has been filed under Sec. 14A(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the order dtd. 28/8/2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Madhepura, in connection with Alamnagar P.S. Case No. 104/2020 corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 77/2020 whereby and whereunder, the learned trial court has taken cognizance against the appellants for the offences under Sec. 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and under Sec. 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.

(3.) Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the informant is not an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and even her son, who informed the informant regarding the victim lying on the road, is also not said to be an eye-witness of the occurrence and during investigation, it came into light that one Antu Paswan had developed extramarital relationship with the informant and in this regard, the statements of independent witnesses namely, Baiju Rajak and Reena Devi who are relatives of the deceased discussed in the para nos. 15 and 16 of the case diary are relevant and during investigation, some of the villagers who saw the actual occurrence stated that the said Antu Paswan with three unknown persons were eating maize (bhutta) who called the informant's husband Pankaj Rajak (victim) and the said victim reached there and thereafter, the sound of firing was heard and after that, Antu Paswan and his unknown friends were seen fleeing from the place of occurrence and in this regard, the statements of independent persons namely, Naresh Mandal and Meena Devi recorded by the investigating officer mentioned in para nos. 55 and 60 of the case diary are relevant. Learned counsel further submits that on the alleged day of occurrence, before and after the commission of the alleged occurrence of murder, the informant who happens to be wife of the deceased remained in touch with Antu Paswan, with whom she had extramarital relationship, through mobile communication and several calls were made in between them and in this regard, there is sufficient materials in the case diary and in actual, the said Antu Paswan eliminated the informant's husband for fulfilling his illegal desire and the informant just in order to save Antu Paswan lodged the FIR with false allegation giving a different colour to the incident and during investigation, it came into light that one Ashok Yadav who was inimical to the informant's husband had set up Antu Paswan to develop illicit relation with the informant in order to grab 2 bigha disputed land. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled by the informant in the FIR were thoroughly investigated and ultimately, the police did not find the appellants' complicity in the alleged occurrence and submitted the final form showing the appellants not sent up for trial and the trial court did not look into the relevant materials and the paragraphs of case diary upon which the learned trial court placed reliance do not disclose even the prima facie material to show the involvement of the appellants in the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants have been made accused mainly on account of being relatives of the co-accused Anishek Mehta with whom the deceased had some land dispute and the FIR has been registered against 12 persons including the appellants but all of them have been made accused mainly on the basis of suspicion without any basis. Learned counsel further submits that as per the FIR and restatement of the informant, the appellants were members of the conspiracy allegedly hatched up by them with co-accused Anishek Mehta to eliminate the informant's husband but there is nothing material to show the alleged conspiracy and the police did not find any material to show that any of the appellants had earlier threatened the victim or was/were present at or near the place of occurrence at the time of commission or met the main accused Anishek Mehta at the time of offence, so, the allegation that the appellants were members of the alleged conspiracy is completely baseless. In support of these submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Cr. App. No. 3618/2023 and referred the para 23 of the said judgment which is being reproduced as under :-