HELEN TIRKEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.1999 passed by the learned VIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 611 of 1997, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for discharge has been rejected by the Trial Court below.

(3.) The present case was admitted by order dated 21.06.1999 and the operation of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court was stayed. The Lower Court Record called for in this case reveals that the case relates to the murder of the brother of the petitioners Jeevan Tirkey and Jeesan Tirkey, whose dead body was recovered from a well. The F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the written application of the A.S.I. of the Chutia Police Station, wherein it is stated that on 19.9.19996 he was informed that a dead body of unknown person was seen in the well, whereupon the dead body was recovered with a stone tied to it. The dead body could not be identified and accordingly, the case was instituted against unknown, which was registered as Chutia P.S. Case No. 67 of 1996, for the offence under Sections 302/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code. During course of investigation the confessional statement of the petitioner No.1 Helen Tirkey was recorded, who is the wife of the petitioner, Jeevan Tirkey. She has stated that the deceased was her brother-inlaw, who in the night of 16.9.1996 in the drunken state tried to commit rape upon her, whereupon she pushed him and strangulated him causing his death. Thereafter, her husband and the other brother-in-law, came there and they threw the dead body in a well, from which it was recovered. On the basis of the confessional statement of the petitioner No. 1, Helen Tirkey, all the three petitioners were made accused in the case and after investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against them. It appears that after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Session, where the petitioners filed their application for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order.