GEETA KUMARI @ REETA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing of the investigation of the case against the petitioners in connection with Thethai Tanger P.S. Case No. 12/2002 registered under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. on the basis of Fardbeyan of the informant Gendha Gwala mainly on the following grounds: That the informant claiming himself to the eyewitness of the occurrence specifically named two ladies, i.e. Phulmani Devi and Sunita Kumari in the F.I.R. alleging therein that he saw the aforesaid two accused assaulting his wife by means of stones and when he raised hulla, the two female fled away and, thereafter, he went near his injured wife and then he saw his wife was having cut injury on her neck caused by sharp cutting weapon and she was profusely bleeding but the Investigating Officer with an ulterior motive has completely changed the case of the prosecution by getting the statement recorded under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. of a boy aged eleven years namely Mukesh Kumar, who is none else that the brother of the FIR named accused Sunita Kumari, The said boy Mukesh Kumar gave a complete different picture of the occurrence and he stated that he saw that his grand mother. I.e. the deceased was being assaulted by Kandri and Geeta (the present petitioners) by means of Stones. He further stated that his sister Sunita Kumari had gone to Khairantoli (another village) to earn livelihood and his mother Phulmani Devi was unable to walk and was confined to bed.

(3.) ON the other hand Respondent No. 3, the Investigating Officer who was noticed by this Court, has filed a Counter affidavit wherein he has denied the allegations made by the petitioner and has stated that in fact the alleged case of murder is being supervised by the Superintendent of Police and on his instructions, the statement of the boy namely Mukesh Kumar was got recorded under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. by a Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class at Simdega. In support of such statements, the copies of the supervision notes of the Superintendent of Police issued time to time have been annexed as Annexure - 1, 2 and 3 to the Counter Affidavit. It is further stated in the Counter Affidavit that his superior Officer gave specific direction to arrest the two female accused (the present petitioners) for proper investigation and he, in discharge of his official duty, had acted in bonafide manner and further that now he has already retired from the service in January 2003 itself, and he has already handed over all responsibilities to the Officer -in -charge of the concerned Police Station and, therefore, he was unnecessarily made a party by name in this writ petition, only to harass him for no fault on his part.