KUNAL @ KUNAL KUMAR MAHTO, S/O UPENDRA LAL MAHTO, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDENT OF TUTAKI, P.O. Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Nand Kishore Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the Informant.

(2.) In this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned A.J.C. XVII, Ranchi in Lalpur P.S. Case No. 113 of 2015 arising out of G.R. No. 2694 of 2015 corresponding to ST No. 111 of 2016 by which the application preferred by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been a considerable delay in instituting the First Information Report as the occurrence had taken place on 2nd Feb., 2015 whereas the First Information Report was lodged on 9th Feb., 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even in course of investigation the complicity of the petitioner was found to be absent as no incriminating substance was recovered to suggest otherwise. It has further been submitted that as per the call detail reports the petitioner was never in contact with the deceased which further falsified the prosecution case. It has been submitted that the alleged suicide note was never produced at the time of the incident and the same is also doubtful document as the same was produced subsequent to the incident. It has also been submitted that Amit Kumar who had given statement u/s 164 Crimial P.C. has not implicated the petitioner in abetting the suicide of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that in course of investigation from Face Book Account of the deceased nothing could be found which would suggest that the petitioner has uploaded some obscene photographs of the deceased which would have caused mental torture to the deceased leading to her committing suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that these facts have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court while refusing to discharge the petitioner from being prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code and 66 D of the Information Technology Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. reported in [2010 (4) East Cr. C 1 (SC)].