Kaleshwar Thakur vs The State Of Bihar

Heard the parties.

This application is for quashing the order dated 04.02.2015 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-4, Khagaria in Sessions Tr. No. 235/2017 235/2017 235/2017 [arising out of Khagaria (Chitragupta Nagar) P.S. Case No. 122/12 dated 11.03.2012] lodged under Sections 147/148 & 302 of the Indian penal code, wherein accused/petitioner has filed an application dated 26.04.2018 under the provisions of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., by saying that no offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C has been made out against the petitioner, but the same has been rejected on the ground that from the materials available on record, it appears that several witnesses have supported the prosecution as mentioned in F.I.R. filed by the Informant Ganesh Sahni, and as per these evidence, a case made out under Sections 147/148/341/504 & 302 of the I.P.C. for framing of charges, and law in the matter is well-settled that even on the basis of suspicion, charges can be framed, so discharge is an exception and trial is a Rule.

The F.I.R. precisely speaking that on 08.03.2012 (Thursday) at about 3 O' clock, informant and others were celebrating Holi and were also taking food, in the meantime his villager Kaleshwar Thakur and 3 others came there, and started abusing, which upon protest by the informant, petitioner became angry and ordered to kill these Sahnis to fellow co-accused persons. On his order Ram Babu Thakur with iron rod, Dharmendra Thakur with spade, Rajnish thakur with lathi, all sons of Kaleshwar Thakur(petitioner), Ram Sharan Thakur S/o Prem Prakash Subir, armed with lathi in their hands started beating them with slap, upon which his mother came to rescue them, then with a view to kill her they started assaulting her with iron rod, spade lathi and slap. After which she has become badly injured. Over their cry, mohalla people came and stopped the assault, thereafter he took his injured mother Tarni Devi to Sadar Hospital, Khagaria for her treatment, but she was referred to Patna, but on 11-3-2012 itself on 6.00 A.M., she died on way to Patna, after which he returned to his house. It is claimed that due to injury inflicted by the accused persons upon his mother, she died.

After investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet in the matter vide charge-sheet no.253/14 dated 11.06.2014 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 504 and 302 of the I.P.C. against accused persons including the petitioner.

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per FIR, the petitioner was alleged only to advance order to other accused persons, whereafter they assaulted the mother of the informant causing her death during her hospitalization. It is submitted that as per FIR, the mother of the informant at first instance was admitted with Sadar Hospital, Khagaria, but it was a false statement as it transpires from the reply of Sadar Hospital which was obtained under R.T.I through Memo No.311 dated 03.04.2012, speaking that no such patient was admitted on that particular date as said through FIR.

Arguing further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per autopsy report even the cause of death of mother of the informant was opined as Cardio Respiratory failure due to COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease). It is submitted that even the autopsy report suggest that the death was natural and therefore, the framing of charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is completely questionable and same is nothing but abuse of the process of court of law, and therefore, the impugned order rejecting the prayer of discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.PC is liable to be set aside/quashed.

Learned APP while opposing the petition submitted that the autopsy report categorically suggest that two external injuries were found upon the body of the deceased, one was an abrasion of size 2”x ½” on the dorsal surface of right forearm, blackish in colour, and another was an abrasion of 2^1/2”x ½” which was also on the dorsal surface of left forearm, blackish in colour. All these two injuries were anti-mortem in nature. It is also submitted that these external injuries found upon the deceased suggest that she was assaulted by accused persons during the occurrence, in furtherance of the order as advanced by this petitioner. The informant is the eye-witness of the occurrence, she was none but the son of the deceased. It is further submitted that the occurrence took place inside the house/courtyard of the informant/deceased.

In view of all such aforesaid facts, there was sufficient material for framing of charges against this petitioner, and therefore, there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order.

Upon considering the submission and perusal of record, it transpires that the autopsy report suggest multiple external injuries on the dead body of the deceased, where occurrence was eye-witnessed by the informant himself, who is none but the son of the deceased. This petitioner was present there, and given order to the other co-accused persons as to kill the deceased after criminal trespass to the house of the informant/deceased, and as such there is more than grave suspicion as to frame charge against the petitioner.

Accordingly, the present petition is devoid of any merit, and therefore, same stands dismissed.

Let the copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned trial court forthwith, with TCR, if any.