ANIL KUMAR SWARNKAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by the two petitioners herein is directed against the order dated 12.5.2005 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura, in Sessions Trial No. 35/2003, arising out of Singheshwar RS. Case No. 91/97, whereby the two petitioners herein alongwith another have been summoned under Sec.319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial even as the trial as against the principal accused, Janardan Bhagat, was dropped by reason of his death.

(2.) THE Singheshwar RS. Case is based on the fardbeyan given by one Prabhu Bhagat at about 8.45 A.M. on 19.8.97 in connection with the all alleged murder of his 18 years old son Sudhir Bhagat. It was given on the roof of the house of his brother Janardan Bhagat where the dead body of Sudhir lay. According to the informant, he had come to the village some two years back and was living with his son and married daughter in a rented house near the house of his brother Janardan. It is said that his son had worked in the rice shop of Janardan Bhagat for about a year and half, he left the job as he was not paid any wages and was provided with food and 'nashta ' only. He then joined the shop of Bishundeo Bhagat which he left after working for seven days and was presently unemployed. It is said that on 18.7.1997, the deceased got "rakhi" tied by his cousins i.e. the daughters of Janardan Bhagat, he then went to his sister at Saharsa, returned by evening and then went to Singheshwar Temple to attend the "Shringar" and "Katha" and from there he went to the house of Janardan at about 10.30 P.M. where he ate his food and then slept on the roof of the house. The next morning Sudhir was found dead by Poonam Devi, the informant 'sdaughter, when she went to wake up her brother. There were multiple injuries on his body as also sign of throttling. The informant claimed that some unknown persons for unknown reasons had killed Sudhir.

(3.) IT appears that at the trial five witnesses were examined including the informant, (P.W. 2), Raj Kumari Devi (P.W. 1) Phuleshwar Mehta (P.W. 3) and two others wherein P.Ws. 1 and 2 expressed their suspicion on Anant Swarnkar and the two petitioners herein but the same was not supported by the other three. The story of deceased 'slove affair with Anju was also not supported by the three witnesses. Accordingly, the informant filed a petition under sec. 319 Cr.P.C. praying therein to summon the two petitioners herein and their father as additional accused to face the trial. The prosecution filed a rejoinder thereto praying to reject the petition filed by the informant on the ground that there was nothing on record to connect the three with the crime. However, the petition of the prosecution did not find favour with the court who by the impugned order has summoned the three to face trial.