RAJIV KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three F.I.R. named accused of Sessions Trial No.122 of 2004, arising out of Jahanabad P.S. Case No. 44 of 2003, have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 1.10.2006 passed therein by Sri C.B. Dwivedi, the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. -V, Jahanabad, whereby he has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE prosecution case based on the fardbeyan of one Shyamji Prasad Singh, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, recorded at about 10.30 A.M. on 1.2.2003 inter alia is to the effect that there was hulla in the village that a person had been shot and his dead body had been thrown in the payne to the west of Beldoribigha. The informant alongwith others reached the spot and saw the dead body of his son Anil Singh. There were several firearm injuries on his body and there was a cut mark on his left cheek. It is said that deceased Anil was the eldest son of the informant and was employed as a Guard in ISI Works Limited Company in Bombay and had come home on 22.1.2003. It is further said that at about 12 noon on 31.1.2003 he had gone on a cycle to village Neema to attend the shradh ceremony of his sarhaj and had not returned on that day. It is further stated that deceased Anil had no enmity with any one but co -villagers Shiv Kumar Singh, Amar Singh and Rajiv Kumar had land dispute for the past two years and some 15 -20 days back an altercation had taken place where the informant was threatened with dire consequences. The informant was suspicious that it was as a consequence of the land dispute that Anil had been killed by the aforesaid persons. On the basis of the said fardbeyan Jahanabad P.S. Case No. 44 of 2003 was registered under Sections 302, 201/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and after due investigation the police submitted a charge -sheet against Shiv Kumar Prasad Singh and Amar Singh under Sections 302, 201, 120 -B I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act. Subsequently, another charge -sheet was submitted against Rajiv Kumar under the same Sections and cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on different dates.

(3.) IT appears that during the pendency of the investigation, the informant filed a protest petition on 8.4.2003 alleging therein that the daroga had entered into collusion with the accused persons and was not recording the correct statements and instead he was twisting the statements of the witnesses to benefit the accused. It was also stated that the statement of some of the witnesses had not been recorded at all.