Rama Kishore Singh @ Rama Singh vs State of Bihar

P.K. Sinha, J.—This is an application wader section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (''the Code, in short) praying therein to quash the order dated 27.11.2002 recorded in Sessions Trial No. 529 of 2001 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur whereby and where under the learned lower Court had rejected the application filed by the petitioner u/s 227 of the Code for his discharge. Before advancing to the arguments placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the ground on which the impugned order was passed, may be looked into. The learned lower Court had noticed that in the case diary in paragraph 166 it appeared that the firearm that was used in this case was possessed only by this petitioner, Rama Kishore Singh @ Rama Singh, hence his complicity had been found in this case and observing thus, the prayer was rejected.

This is a case of murder of as many as five persons and the miscreants, eight in number, were also named in the F.I.R, who allegedly had come with 2-3 unknown persons, the petitioner having been not so named.

To appreciate the submissions, by order dated 9.11.2004 the case diary of the concerned case was called which has been received on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that nothing has come in the case diary except the aforesaid paragraph 166 relating to the petitioner and that no witness in the entire case diary had named the petitioner as having participated in the occurrence and there is no circumstantial evidence, whatsoever, either.

On going through the case diary the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that reference to this petitioner has come first in paragraph 164 of the case diary which had reproduced the conclusions arrived at by the Superintendent of Police concerned who had noticed that it appeared that ultra modem firearms were used in the occurrence which arms were said to have been possessed by the gang of one Sudhir Singh and that the miscreants had indirect connection with this petitioner, hence his hand also was suspected. In paragraph 166 of the case diary, as submitted, some information given by a police spy has been noted, without naming him who said, when asked about this petitioner, that the firearms that were used in the occurrence were possessed only by this petitioner. There are some other paragraphs such as 229 and 231 of the case diary which reveal as to how this petitioner was arrested and paragraph 232 noted that on enquiry the petitioner claimed that he was innocent.

These are all the materials in the case diary against the petitioner, as admitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

If it had come in evidence that the firearms with which murders were proved to have been committed were possessed only by this petitioner, this could have connected the petitioner with the crime howsoever remotely. But it does not appear that any such thing has come on the record. What has come in paragraph 166 of the case diary is only as to what a faceless police spy had told the Investigating Officer. The alleged materials that have come against the petitioner in the case diary, I am afraid, would not be admissible in evidence, if the case goes on trial against the petitioner also.

It is well settled that criminal proceedings can be quashed against a person who has been charge-sheeted after police investigation if the materials including the documents collected by the Investigating Officer do not reveal any evidence admissible about the complicity of that person, or show that such a particular person appeared to have committed any crime.

This being so I don''t find that the impugned order can be sustained. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 27.11.2002 recorded by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur is hereby quashed and the application of the petitioner for his discharge u/s 227 of the Code in the lower Court, is hereby allowed.