TILAK YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 27.11.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar in S.T. No. 122 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 89 of 2006 arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No. 23 of 2006 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed. The name of petitioner Dhananjay Nath Sahi was deleted by the order of this Court dated 25.8.2009 on his death.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that the informant-Officer-in-charge of Chandwa police station recorded his self statement on 26.2.2006 at about 17.30 hours narrating inter alia that on telephonic message received that some extremists had been assaulting the pilgrims who had arrived at Nagar temple, he with the police party rushed there and enquired from the shopkeepers about the occurrence and only from whom he could gather that the extremists had taken away about 8/10 pilgrims including one Lakhan Prasad Jaiswal with them to unknown place. On such information the police party proceeded tracking the retreat of the extremists but finding and spotting the police coming towards them, the extremists resorted firing which was retaliated by the police. Realizing the pressure of the police the extremists escaped after releasing the persons who were abducted by them. The police party intercepted various incriminating articles including literatures, posters, hand bills and note books at some distance besides utensils and empty cartridges to which seizure list was prepared in presence of the witnesses. The statement of the victim Lakhan Prasad Jaiswal was recorded who narrated that he and other 8/10 pilgrims were abducted from near the temple by the extremists on the gun point and they alleged against Lakhan Prasad Jaiswal that he was the spy of the police and that he was brutally assaulted by them. He further apprised that Biru Yadav, Krishna Yadav and Tilak Yadav had made arrangement of breakfast and meal for the extremists and that they had been supplying food to them. In the meantime, extremists escaped after gun battle with the police party. He disclosed the complicity of several accused persons as extremists, engaged in criminal activities of abduction and other crimes, and also implicated the petitioners Tilak Yadav,Biru Yadav, Krishna Yadav etc.

(3.) Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were innocent and were not at all concerned with the alleged offence. The counsel added that the statements of several witnesses were recorded in paragraph 99 of the case diary who were consistent that Lakhan Prasad Jaiswal was on inimical term with the petitioners on the ground of land disputes, that apart, disputes related to management of Nagar Temple. The management of the said temple was ultimately transferred in the name of deity with the constitution of the trustee committee who looked after the interest of the properties which were assigned in the name of deity. Mr. Singh explained that the other victims, who were abducted, such as Mohat Khan and Chandra Shekhar Pandey and other were also examined and their statements were recorded as contained in paragraphs 13,14 and 15 of the case diary, who were consistent by not implicating the petitioners in any manner for their abduction or otherwise also. However, the allegation that was left out against the petitioners was that they had been supplying food to the extremists (MC.C.) outlaws. As regards the complicity of the petitioner Jago Sao @ Jageshwar Sao @ Yogendra Prasad Sahu was concerned, there was no material at all against him except his name was found mention in the note books which were recovered by the police in course of investigation that he had given certain amount to the extremists (M.C.C.) and for that the petitioners cannot be held criminally liable for hatching a criminal conspiracy against the Union of India. A person cannot be held accused only on the ground that his name was mentioned in the note book of the extremists as donor without any corroborative evidence that he was seen by some witnesses delivering certain amount to the M.C.C. people or their agent and therefore, criminal prosecution of the petitioner Jago Sao @ Jageshwar Sao @ Yogendra Prasad Sahu would tantamount to misuse of the process of the court.