SAMIR KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuing a direction upon the respondent No. 3 under Section 319 of Cr PC to face the trial along with all other accused persons and also to summon the Secretary of Belabagan Puja Samiti, respondent No. 4 under Section 311, Cr PC which is necessary for the ends of justice.

(2.) FACTS leading to the filing of this writ application are that the petitioner gave a fardbeyan before the police, on the basis of which Deoghar PS Case No. 239/97 under Sections 302/34, IPC was registered and the IO, after investigation, submitted charge -sheet against the accused persons. After registration of the case, police took up investigation by submitting charge -sheet against the persons, on the basis of which cognizance was taken and later on order of commitment was passed and the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions from where the case was registered and then case was transferred to the Court of 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoghar. There were 11 witnesses named in the charge -sheet and out of them 9 witnesses were examined in the case. It is also submitted that during the trial, witnesses particularly PWs 1, 8 and 9 made out a clear cut case of criminal conspiracy hatched by Chandra Bhanu Sao to commit the crime of taking away the life of a youth. The witnesses clearly stated the conspiracy hatched up by this respondent No. 3 and also threats were extended by this respondent No. 3 on previous occasions and on that basis a petition was filed for summoning respondent No. 3 under Section 319, Cr PC to face trial but the learned trial Court transferred his jurisdiction by passing order dated 24.1.2000 whereby the prayer of the petitioner was rejected. Further prayer of the petitioner was under Section 311, Cr PC to summon Pradeep Kumar Singh, Secretary of Belagablan Puja Samiti, Deoghar as a witness on the ground that witnesses have deposed that there was some dispute between the family members of Chandra Bhanu Sao and members of Puja Samiti but that prayer was also refused.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that earlier a revision application was preferred by the State of Bihar now Jharkhand and also by accused Munna Singh and also a revision was preferred by the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Deogarh and all those revision applications have been dismissed after an elaborate order was passed by a Bench of this Court and, therefore, a writ application on the same point is not maintainable.