AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. C. Mishra
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chatra, whereby the application filed by the petitioners u/s 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge was rejected.
It appears that the petitioners have been made accused in Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 252 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 859 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120(B)) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1) (ii) of the C.L.A. Act. The case relates to murder of husband of the informant, which was instituted against the persons of extremists group. Though the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R., but it is alleged that members of extremists group had assembled and one Santosh Yadav, who was the Area Commander had fired from point blank range upon the deceased, causing his death. It appears that the case was investigated and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners also. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Session. The petitioners filed application for discharge, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 16.12.2009 holding that during investigation, the witnesses have stated about the complicity of the petitioners in the crime.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and there is direct allegation against one Santosh Yadav to have committed the murder. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case, in which, the petitioners ought to have been discharged.
Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statements of some of the witnesses in the case diary, who have stated that the petitioners were Also present at the place of occurrence and some witnesses have also stated that they had seen the petitioners fleeing away from the place of occurrence.
In view of the fact that witnesses have named these petitioners also to be present at the place of occurrence, there are materials against these petitioners also in the case diary, sufficient for framing the charge. As such, there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by learned Court below worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application, which is accordingly, dismissed. It is submitted that original case diary has been received in this case. Let the same be sent back to the Court concerned at the earliest.