MANOJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Interlocutory Application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 276 days' delay in presenting the Criminal Revision for the reasons explained that the impugned order though was passed on 13.02.2007 by which summons was issued to the petitioner to be arrayed as an accused under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure but even thereafter, he was summoned by the order dated 16.03.2007 as a prosecution witness to depose which led an impression in the mind of the petitioner that he was a witness and not an accused and therefore, he was indecisive and that the delay thus was beyond his control. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if the delay would not be condoned for the ends of justice.

(2.) HAVING been satisfied with the grounds taken, the delay is condoned and the Interlocutory Application is allowed accordingly, disposed of.

(3.) THE prosecution story in short was that the informant Rajan Bauri delivered his statement before the police on 08.12.2005 stating inter alia that on 07.12.2005 while his father Gopal Bauri (since deceased) was there in his house after concluding his work, the petitioner Manoj Kumar Singh came there and persuaded to accompany him to enjoying liquor. Pursuant to such persuasion his father accompanied the petitioner Manoj Kumar Singh. When his father did not return back late in the night he along with his mother set out and made extensive search but his father could not be located. In the morning, he was apprised by the villagers that the dead body of his father Gopal Bauri was found lying behind Rajpura Colliery. On such information, the informant visited and found that the neck of his father was strangulated with the help of muffler and there was injury on the left temporal region appeared to be caused by any pointed stone. The police registered a case under Section 302 I.P.C. against unknown. In course of investigation, the police arrested one Sanjay Tudu, who in his confessional statement admitted having committed murder of the father of the informant as they had picked up quarrel while they were enjoying liquor and that in spur of moment he assaulted the deceased with the heavy stone as a result of which he died. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as prosecution witness in which he had categorically admitted that he had left the father of the informant in the company of Sanjay Tudu while both were enjoying liquor. One Bimal Mandal in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. corroborated the statement of the petitioner that he had witnessed Sanjay Tudu enjoying liquor and snacks with the deceased as the same were purchased from his shop. The police after investigation submitted charge -sheet only against Sanjay Tudu and the petitioner Manoj Kumar Singh herein was made a witness who stood at Sl.No.6 in the column of witnesses. The C.J.M. after having been satisfied with the materials available in the case diary took cognizance of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. only against Sanjay Tudu. The learned Counsel for the petitioner added here that even at that stage the informant did not prefer to file any protest petition to array the petitioner Manoj Kumar Singh as an accused in the case. After commitment, charge was framed against the sole accused Sanjay Tudu under Section 302 I.P.C. and after examination of 7 prosecution witnesses the informant filed a petition through a private lawyer under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner to stand trial in the instant case as an accused which was erroneous.