SIDHESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Counter and rejoinder has been exchanged between the parties and the writ petition is heard finally on behalf of the two petitioners, namely, Sidheshwar Singh S/o Late Sakal Singh and Rampukar Singh S/o Late Ramsurat Singh.

(2.) The petitioners were dismissed from the police department on 24.1.1992 while they were discharging their duties as Assistant Sub-Inspector. The first information report was registered against them under Sections 148/149/302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial commenced and in the sessions trial, the accused were granted a clear acquittal holding that the State was not able to establish and substantiate the allegations of the first information report. The concluding paragraph of the judgment dated 13.5.2004 passed by 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Gaya in S.T. No. 117/2003 and 269/2003 held that the husband of the first Informant was, no doubt, murdered but there is not a single witness who has come forward to support the prosecution story aiid, therefore, the State has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons.

(3.) It is brought to my notice that this was not the acquittal on the basis of "benefit of doubt' but it is a case of clear acquittal for want of sufficient evidence and, therefore, the petitioners have been honourably granted verdict of acquittal under Sections 302/149, 109/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Simultaneously, the departmental proceeding had also commenced. The set of evidence was identical and the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the regular departmental proceedings. Subsequent to acquitted in the criminal trial, the Enquiry Officer also exonerated the petitioners, along with other similarly placed police officials, as the evidence led in the criminal case as well as in the domestic enquiry was one and same and since the criminal Court had acquitted the delinquent on those very evidence;, therefore, several other employees of the police department, namely, Ram Pravesh Pandit & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 6329 of 1995 and Satya Narayan Singh & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 6330 of 1995 were reinstated setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority. It was confirmed by the Division Bench by a judgment dated 29.8.20D5. The said decision in the connected two writ petitions is reported in 2005 (4) JLJR 164. The petitioners were directed for their reinstatement in the writ petitions on the basis of several decisions of the Apex Court. The leading case is Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines ltd.,1999 3 SCC 769 followed in several other decisions in the case of Krishna Kali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bhartiya Chan Mazdoor Sangh, 2004 8 SCC 200 and also the case of Manager Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani., 2005 3 JCR 110.