PRONOB DEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have invoked the extra -ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directions commanding upon the respondents to arrange Test Identification Parade of the petitioners in Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.105 of 2007 which was instituted for the alleged offence under Sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code or in alternative to issue appropriate directions in the interest of justice to the petitioners.

(2.) PROSECUTION story, relevant to the facts of case, is that the informant Suman Kumari respondent No.2 herein in her statement, recorded in the night of 8.6.2007 at about 1:30 a.m. before the police officer, narrated that on 7.6.2007 at about 12:30 p.m. she had come to her brothers house situated in Hatia Railway Colony, B -Type near Kali Temple with her younger sister Laxmi Kumari. At about 10:30 p.m. on the same day she and her sister Laxmi Kumari had come to Hatia Railway Station with Butru Munda and Banti Kachchap and while returning, they were held up by four named and two unknown accused persons who appeared suddenly before them and started assaulting Butru and Banti. When she intervened as to why they were assaulting them, the culprits then caught hold both the informant and her sister and began to drag them towards the field nevertheless on the way her sister Laxmi Kumari escaped. All the accused persons then committed gang rape on her after forcibly removing her garments. Consequent to which she became unconscious and only on the alarm raised by her sister Laxmi Kumari witnesses from the Colony arrived at the scene but the accused escaped. Alleged occurrence took place at about 11:30 p.m. The police on her statement registered Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.105 of 2007 on 8.6.2007 at about 5:00 a.m. against four named accused persons and two unknown.

(3.) COUNTER -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent -State duly deposed by D.S.P., Hatia. The deponent in his statement, as contained in paragraph -7, has clearly stated that the Investigating Officer after investigation of the case submitted chargesheet against Parvesh Lohara and Mangru @ Manoj Kachchap for the alleged offence under Sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending investigation against Sunil Dey and Konak Dey and that arrest warrants have been issued against them. Yet it was nowhere mentioned in the counter -affidavit that any material was found against the petitioners and that the investigation pending under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was directed only against Sunil Dey and Konak Dey.