MAHABIR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This application is directed against an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, dismissing the petitioner's complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) One Mukhal Hajra was murdered on the 20th November, 1976, at about 7 p. m. The first information report about the occurrence was lodged by his son on the following day. The petitioner and some others were named as accused in the first information report. A case was registered on the basis of the first information report and investigation followed. In course of the investigation, it is said that the accusations against the accused persons were not established. On the contrary, the investigation disclosed that opposite party nos. 2 and 3, Hiralal Singh and Chandrika Pandey, had actually committed the murder of the deceased. The petitioner alleges that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had supervised the investigation had expressly held so and, in fact, he had assured the petitioner that charge-sheet would be submitted in the case against opposite party nos. 2 and 3. No charge-sheet was, however, submitted in that case against anyone. A final report was submitted on the 30th August, 1978 which was accepted by the learned Magistrate on he 9th September, 1978.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint on the 21st October, 1978, in which he alleged that opposite party nos. 2 to 8 had participated in the murder of the deceased. The petitioner was examined on solemn affirmation and he produced six witnesses, including the widow of the deceased, to support the allegations which had been made in the petition of complaint. The witnesses had supported the petitioner's allegations in his statement before the learned Magistrate The petitioner alleged that the son of the deceased, who had lodged information about the occurrence, naming the petitioner and others as accused was also examined before a Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, soon after he had lodged the first information, report. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the statement made by the son of the deceased on the 26th November, 1976, before the Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The occurrence, it may be recalled, had taken place on the 20th November, 1976. In that statement as well the son of the deceased had expressly stated that he had been asked to implicate the prtitioner and his family members by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and that he had been threatened with murder, if he declined to do so. It was at their instance, therefore, that he had implicated the petitioner amongst the persons who committed the crime.