In Re: Budheswar Singh Mura and Others

Joymalya Bagch, J.—The impugned order dated 4th June, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Purulia in Sessions Case No. 160 of 2012 (Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2013) framing charges against the petitioners under Sections 148/186/353/307/148 of the Indian Penal Code has been assailed.

The prosecution case as alleged against the petitioners is to this effect that on 12th September, 2010 at about 5 p.m. a large number of persons being armed with bows and arrows came in front of Jhalda Police Station and demanded immediate unconditional release of two arrested persons, namely, Santosh Majhi and Atul Besra, who had been arrested in connection with Jhalda Police Station Case No. 97 of 2010 dated 12th September, 2010. It is further alleged that the accused persons became agitated and forcibly entered into the compound of the Police Station and tried to snatch away the arrested persons. The accused persons started pelting stones and brickbats at the police personnel and caused injuries on their presence and even attempted to kill them. In order to control the unruly mob, the police had to resort to lathi charge.

In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet being No. 43/11 dated 30th June, 2011 under Sections 147/148/149/186/323/325/307/353 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted before the learned Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. By the impugned order, charges were framed under Sections 148/186/353/307/148 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Learned lawyer for the petitioners submits that the order framing charges does not disclose the fact that they were given an opportunity of hearing. He also submitted that the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the ingredients of offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In this connection, he referred to the observation made by the learned Court below while granting bail to the petitioners. He further submits that the actual assailants are not identifiable in the instant case.

I find that the accused persons in the instant case formed an unlawful assembly for the purpose of snatching away arrested persons from police custody. In pursuance of such unlawful object, some members of the said unlawful assembly allegedly assaulted the police personnel causing injuries. The presence and participation of the petitioners in the unlawful assembly cannot be ruled out in view of the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is trite law that when a person is a member of an unlawful assembly, he would be constructively liable for the offences committed by any member thereof. Hence, in pursuance of such unlawful object there is little force in the submission of the learned lawyer for the petitioners as the identity of the actual assailant is not disclosed in the instant case, the petitioners ought to be discharged. With regard to the offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code, I am of the opinion that the observation made by the learned Courts below while granting bail is a tentative one cannot have binding effect during trial of the case. That apart, even accepting such contention it would not amount to a clean discharge of the petitioners from the case. Accordingly, no prejudice can be said to be caused to the petitioners in the event they are tried by the Court of Sessions, which is a superior Court than that of the learned Magistrate.

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the submission made on the behalf of the petitioners. The revisional application is, accordingly, dismissed.

The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible following the mandate of Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code.