SUDAMA DUBAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure is directed against the order dated 5. 2. 2008 passed by Additional Sessions judge (FTC HI) Palamau in S. T. No. 106 of 2006 whereby learned Additional sessions Judge refused to summon three persons, namely Rama Pandey, Uday chandra Pandey and Sanjiv Pandey under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial along with other accused persons.

(2.) THE facts giving rise this application are that the informant, Sudama Dubey (P. W. 1) logged the case alleging therein that while he was sitting in the shop of one basant Ram, four persons, namely, Rama pandey, Sanjiv Pandey, Chhotan Thakur and Panchu Pandey came over there in a jeep and got the informant Sudama Pandey and seated in that jeep forcibly and brought at Bathan where Uday Chandra Pandey was present and on being asked when he got out from the Jeep, accused Uday chandra Pandey exhorted other accused to kill him and thereupon Rama Pandey as-saulted him with lathi and then other accused persons also assaulted.

(3.) ON the basis of fardbeyan given by the informant, a case was registered against five persons, namely, Rama Pandey, Sanjiv pandey, Chhotan Thakur, Panchu Pandey and Uday Chandra Pandey and the matter was taken up for investigation but the Investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against Chhotu Pandey, Panchu Pandey named in first informant report and also against Nawal Kishore Pandey and Girivar pandey, who had never been named in the first information report and so far three persons, namely, Rama Pandey, Uday Chandra pandey and Sanjiv Pandey are concerned, they were exonerated from the charge but before filing the charge-sheet, when the informant suspected some foul play on the part of Investigating Officer, he had filed a protest petition by way of abundant precaution. However, on filing of the charge-sheet, charges were framed against those persons, who were charge-sheeted and the informant was examined as P. W. 1 and subsequently, 15 other witnesses were examined. Thereupon an application was filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 17. 1. 2008 stating therein that there has been ample evidence against the aforesaid three persons and as such, they be summoned to face trial along with other accused persons but the Court below refused to summon them to face trial after taking note of the fact that out of 16 witnesses, only informant (P. W. 1)and P. W. 16 have named the accused persons sought to be summoned and of them P. W. 16 is even not charge-sheet witness.