Rajesh Nonia vs The State of Jharkhand

H.C. Mishra

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Secionts 302, 338, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Jorapokhar (Sudamdih) P. S. Case No. 47 of 2009, Corresponding to G. R. No. 664 of 2009 (Sessions Trial No. 331 of 2009).

The case was instituted on the basis of the written statement given by the Police Officer, who was investigating an U.D. case. During investigation it was found on the basis of the F.S.L. report that the death of the deceased was due to poisoning and, accordingly, the Investigating Officer lodged the F.I.R. on 05.03.2009 for the offence under Sections 302, 338, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was also made an accused in this case and the charge sheet was also submitted.

It appears that the cognizance was also taken in the case and the case was committed to the Court of Session, where the application was filed by the petitioner under Sections 227 Cr. P.C. for discharge. The said application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 07.08.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC - III, Dhanbad in S. T. No. 331 of 2009 holding that there was sufficient material for framing the charge against the petitioner under Sections 302, 338, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that that impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, previously, an U.D. Case was filed in this case and after one year of the occurrence the present F.I.R. has been lodged, in which, the petitioner has been made accused only on the basis of the suspicion. It has also been submitted that only the family members of the deceased had suspected against the petitioner and the other witnesses have stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case for discharge and the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, opposed the prayer of discharge and submitted from the case diary that the witnesses have stated making suspicion against the petitioner also.

The Court below upon going through the material on record has found that there was strong suspicion against the petitioner in the case and at this stage the petitioner cannot be discharged as there was sufficient material for framing the charge against the petitioner also, under Sections 302, 338, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is well settled principle of law of that meticulous examination of the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police during investigation is not at all required at the stage for framing the charge. If material is there in the case diary, even in form of suspicion against the accused, the charge can be framed against the accused and the innocence or otherwise of the accused can be seen only in course of the trial.

Accordingly, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby, dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of this revision shall not prejudice the defense of the petitioner in course of trial in any manner whatsoever.