SUBODH BARA BABU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.

(2.) The instant criminal revision is against the order dtd. 28/6/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahebganj in M.C.A. No. 45 of 2020, arising out of S.T. Case No. 10 of 2020, whereby the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner had been dismissed.

(3.) Mr. B.M. Tirpathy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is erroneous in the eyes of law as well as on facts. The learned trial court did not consider the allegations made against the petitioner which were far from truth. The police after concluding the investigation had filed the Final Report against which the informant filed protest-cum-complaint petition on 28/9/2010 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj took cognizance against the petitioner under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that against the order taking cognizance dtd. 18/10/2018, the petitioner preferred a criminal miscellaneous petition being Cr.M.P. No. 1595 of 2010 before this Court which was quashed vide order dtd. 1/9/2016 and the matter was remanded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the materials on record. Thereafter, the learned S.D.J.M., Sahebganj again took cognizance on 19/12/2016 against the petitioner under Sec. 376 I.P.C. Against the said cognizance order, the petitioner again preferred a criminal miscellaneous petition being Cr.M.P. No. 69 of 2017 before this Court and vide order dtd. 16/7/2019 the same was dismissed with an observation that the Court has not expressed any opinion or view on the merit of the case and discussion is confined to the legality of the cognizance taking order. The trial court was further directed to decide the case on its own merit without being prejudiced or influenced by any observation made by this Court. It is further submitted that the learned trial court while rejecting the discharge application of the petitioner relied upon the testimony of Bishu Paswan, the peon of Employment Exchange, Sahebganj while from the attendance register, it appears that he was not present in office on 26/11/2009. The learned trial court did not rely upon the medical evidence in which no sign of rape or injury i.e., external or internal over the body party of the victim was found. The victim was a married women aged about 52 years and she is also having children. It is also submitted that the employment exchange card of the victim was valid up to 26/4/2010, as such, there was no occasion for renewal of the same as alleged by the victim/informant on 26/11/2009. Indeed, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case in order to harass him and also to extort money. From the investigation itself, it is found that the vaginal swab report was not received during investigation and merely relying upon the testimony of the statement of the prosecutrix, the learned trial court declined to allow the discharge application of the petitioner. Lastly, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the informant has stated in the F.I.R. that she reached at Sahebganj at 10:00 a.m. by Dhulian passenger train on 26/11/2009 but as per certificate received from the Railway Station, the train on the very day of occurrence had reached to Sahebganj at 12:10 p.m. and it was not possible for the victim/informant to reach at the Employment Exchange Office at 1:00 p.m.