Ramesh @ Jaga Pradha vs State

S.C. Parija, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in G.R. Case No. 62 of 2012, corresponding to S.T. Case No. 61/65/106 of 2013/12, pending in the Court of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda, for the offences under Sections 366/302/420/201/34 IPC and the order of cognizance taken therein.

The brief facts of the case is that one Kulamani Biswal (informant) filed a written complaint before the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, which was registered as ICC No. 484 of 2011, alleging therein that his unmarried younger daughter Kantilata Biswal was missing from home from the night of 26.11.2011. It was alleged that the complainant informed the said fact regarding missing of his younger daughter at Kuhudi Police Out Post for making enquiry about the incident. It was alleged that in the morning of 27.11.2011, at about 10 A.M., the present petitioner, who is the uncle of the principal accused Sudhir Subudhi, came to the house of the complainant and gave proposal to his daughter-in-law that his nephew (Sudhir Subudhi) has kidnapped the victim girl and has kept her in the house of Pramila Nayak, in village Hanumanta and if the complainant''s family pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry, the marriage of Sudhir Subudhi with the daughter of the complainant can be solemnised. It was further alleged that at about 11 A.M., accused Sudhir Subudhi also informed the daughter-in-law of the complainant over telephone to finalise his marriage with Kantilata on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry.

It was the further allegation of the complainant in the complaint petition that on reaching his house, the complainant came to know about the matter from his daughter-in-law and tried to arrange money for the purpose of marriage of his daughter. On 28.11.2011 morning, at about 9 A.M., he got information that his daughter Kantilata Biswal was lying dead on the railway track in between village Biribadi and Chhakodipur. He rushed to the spot with the villagers and found the dead body of his daughter lying on the railway track. On recovery of the dead body, Nirakarpur GRPS Out Post U.D. Case No. 27, dated 28.11.2011 was registered and post-mortem was conducted. Thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the complainant. As the written report of the complainant was not received by the Tangi Police Station, he has approached the learned Magistrate by way of complaint.

Learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, sent the complaint in ICC No. 484 of 2011 to the IIC, Tangi Police Station, to register the same as an FIR and investigate the case. Accordingly, Tangi P.S. Case No. 16 of 2012 was registered against Sudhir Subudhi and the present petitioner under Sections 366/302/34 IPC. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet before the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, for commission of offences under Sections 366/302/201/34 IPC and the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 4.6.2012, took cognizance of the same.

It is the case of the petitioner that the principal accused Sudhir Subudhi faced trial before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda, in S.T. Case No. 61/65/106 of 2013/12 and vide judgment dated 14.08.2013, he has been acquitted of all charges, as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is accordingly submitted that as the principal accused, namely, Sudhir Subudhi has already been acquitted of all charges by the learned trial Court, on the ground that none of the charges could be established by the prosecution, no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner, especially when the chances of his ultimate conviction are bleak.

Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that in view of the fact that the principal accused, namely, Sudhir Subudhi, who was charged of the offences under Sections 366/302/201/34 IPC, has already been acquitted of all charges by the learned trial Court, no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner, especially when there are no other independent material to substantiate the charges against the accused-petitioner.

On a perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court, it is seen that the Investigating Officer has testified that the deceased Kantilata had committed suicide by jumping in front of a moving train. Further, the medical evidence indicated that deceased Kantilata died due to massive haemorrhage and neurogenic shock due to railway traffic accident and that the deceased might have committed suicide by jumping in front of the train. In view of such materials on record, learned trial Court proceeded to acquit accused Sudhir Subudhi from all charges. Relevant findings of the learned trial Court is extracted below:

No definite conclusion can be made that accused persons had murdered the deceased Kantilata and then threw her dead body before moving train, particularly when the I.O. testifies that the deceased has committed suicide. On surmise and conjecture the court cannot draw a definite conclusion in this regard against the accused. At the same time when the medical evidence indicates that the deceased died due to massive haemorrhage and neurogenic shock due to rail traffic accident, the deceased might have committed suicide by jumping over the train. When such view cannot be discarded, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt to hold him guilty u/s. 302 IPC. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda -vrs-State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 S.C. 1622, the Hon''ble Apex Court while reiterating five conditions precedent necessary in a case based on circumstantial evidence, has also propounded that a case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no person can be convicted on pure moral conviction. Further that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the facts of the present case it cannot certainly be inferred that the circumstances definitely establish the crime, committed by the accused nor indicate to be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and of conclusive nature and tendency. I get support to my view from the principles laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in the above mentioned case. Moreover the chain of circumstance i.e. the deceased was kept in the house of aunt of the accused and there was demanding of Rs. 1 lakh for the marriage and bringing her to village Chhakodipur in the evening and quarreling with her has not been legally proved for which the prosecution has not discharged the burden of proof on it. Sec. 106 of Evidence Act does not shift such burden, for which no conclusion can be drawn against the accused in the facts of this case.

Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the fact that the principal accused Sudhir Subudhi, who had faced trial for commission of the offences u/s 366/302/201/34 IPC, has already been acquitted of all charges on the finding that the deceased Kantilata had committed suicide by jumping in front of the train, I feel, no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner, especially when the chances of his ultimate conviction are bleak.

In view of the above, the criminal proceeding initiated against the present petitioner, in G.R. Case No. 62 of 2012, corresponding to S.T. Case No. 61/65/106 of 2013/12, pending in the Court of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda, for the offences under Sections 366/302/420/201/34 IPC, along with all other consequential criminal proceedings are hereby quashed.

CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.