BINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant.

(2.) THE petitioner is an accused in sakchi P. S. Case No. 240 of 207 registered under Sections 302/34/120b of the Indian penal Code.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when Ashish Dey was murdered by some unknown persons, a case was registered against unknown and since the case was of blind murder, the police started investigating the case on different theories. First, it raised suspicion against the members of an organization called 'mmg' as the deceased has received call whereby the members attached with the said organization has asked for ransom. Simultaneously, it raised suspicion against Amlesh kumar and Akhilesh Singh said to be renowned criminal of Jamshedpur indulging themselves in all sorts of criminal activities including commission of an offence of extortion and murder as Amlesh Kumar had grievance against the deceased as the deceased being owner of a Hotel "smita" had removed one of his employees, namely, rupesh Singh, who has close association with Amlesh Kumar. At the same time, it raised suspicion against one Jitendra Singh alias Pappu Don, who is said to have confessed that he got the deceased murdered but subsequently, when he underwent Poly-graphic test and Brain Mapping Test, it transpired that he, in order to mislead the investigating agency, has falsely confessed his guilt at the instance of one Police Officer. Lastly, suspicion was raised against this petitioner on the premise that there had been business rivalry on account of having a hotel named as "city Inn" whereas the deceased was the owner of a Hotel named as "smita". That apart, it is also said that the petitioner wanted to acquire/purchase valuable lands situated at Sakchi but the deceased always proved to be hurdled as most of the resident of Sakchi intending to sell their lands used to consult the deceased who would discourage them to sell the land to the petitioner but this is not the true state of affairs and moreover, the prosecution has come forward with any specific instance of the land dealings under which the petitioner intended to purchase certain piece of land which was frustrated by the deceased, rather specific instance is against one Bablu ghosh, who purchased a piece of valuable land which the deceased also wanted to purchase.