LAL KISHUN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 5.9.2001 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda in Sessions Trial Nos. 472 of 1992 and 286 of 1991 by which he discharged all the accused persons (Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 16) of Sessions Trial No. 472 of 1992 under section 227 of the Code and has ordered to frame charge under the provisions of Section 228 of the Code against the petitioners in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 1991 arising out of Islampur P.S. Case No. 26/86. Heard both sides.

(2.) IT appears that petitioner No. 1 Shailendra Kumar Son of Rameshwar Singh had filed a complaint dated 14.2.1986 against Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 16 and one Ramdeo Singh (since dead) for committing dacoity in the night of 9.2.1986 in the house of the complainant at village Chakdaulat, P.S. Islampur, District Nalanda, in course of which Opposite Party Raj Kumar Singh is said to have fired on one Rajeshwar Prasad who received serious injury and was hospitalised. After filing of the complaint, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and then seven witnesses including the injured Rajeshwar Prasad were examined in enquiry under section 202 of the Code. As the witnesses supported the prosecution case, the processes were issued against them for facing trial under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Ultimately, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 472 of 1992.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant (petitioner Shailendra Kumar) in his statement on solemn affirmation and the witnesses examined under section 202 of the Code in Sessions Trial No. 472 of 1992 have fully supported the complaint and stated that Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 16 committed dacoity in the house of Shailendra Kumar and in course of that dacoity Opposite Party Raj Kumar Singh also fired causing serious injury to Rajeshwar Singh but the learned Additional Sessions Judge without considering the evidence, on flimsy grounds discharged the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 16. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also mentioned in his order that during the course of investigation of Islampur P.S. Case No. 26/ 86 information regarding the dacoity alleged to have been committed in the house of Shailendra Kumar was also given but the I.O. found the F.I.R. lodged by Vijay Kumar true whereas paragraphs 18,19, 20 (complainant), 21 and 36 of the case diary would show that there was a dacoity in the house of the petitioner Shailendra Kumar in which the Opposite Parties were identified and paragraph 29 of the case diary would show that some stolen articles recovered from the house of Rameshwar Singh i.e. father of the complainant were handed over to the police. Therefore, there is sufficient material in the case diary also against the Opposite Parties. He also submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also considered the delay in filing the complaint, when this delay is explained therein. So, there was no sufficient ground to discharge the Opposite Parties in Sessions Trial No. 472 of 1992 for committing dacoity in the house of the complainant (petitioner Shailendra Kumar).