Dismissed

Phulmani Gudia v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Sept 2016W.P.(Cr.)/63/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an informant in a sexual assault case against a Deputy Development Commissioner, sought to record her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. claiming her daughter gave wrong information. The magistrate dismissed the prayer as an afterthought filed with oblique motives to delay prosecution, distinguishing reliance.

What did the court decide?

No direction issued to record the petitioner's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Phulmani Gudia Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr) No. 63 of 2016

¶2

Phulmani Gudia, Wife of Sri Barahel Gudia, Resident of Village-Kalat, Sarna Toli, P.O. & P.S. Torpa, District-Khunti. .....Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand. ....... Respondent --CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate For the Respondent : J.C. to AAG ---

¶5

07/16.9.2016 Heard the parties.

¶6

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti to record the statement of the petitioner under section 164 Cr.P.C. in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 121 of 2015.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the informant of Khunti P.S. Case No. 121 of 2015 who had filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti for recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. in view of subsequent development, in which she has admitted that due to ill-advise, her daughter had given a wrong information before her which led her to record her fardbeyan. It has further been submitted that recording of the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the informant will prevent the abuse of process of court as innocent persons will not be prosecuted. Such application had been filed which however has not been considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment rendered in the case of Reshma Khan Vs. The State of Jharkhand ( Cr. Rev. No.999 of 2014)

¶8

Learned J.C. to AAG on the other hand has submitted that informant has supported the allegation in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. and the application filed by the petitioner seems to be an afterthought. It has been submitted that Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. gives discretion to the Magistrate if in his opinion such application has to be recorded which is best fitted to the circumstances of the case. Learned counsel submits that it is not mandatory for the learned Magistrate to record the statement of the informant as it is incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to record only such statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., which best suits the trial of the case as well as which helps the accused to justice.

¶9

-2-

¶10

It appears that Khunti P.S. Case No. 121 of 2015 was instituted for the offence under sections 354(A)/354(B)/509 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act. The petitioner is the informant whose daughter namely Duli Gudia was subjected to sexual assault by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Khunti which finds recorded in the fardbeyan of the petitioner. The FIR was instituted on 15.7.2015 and the statement of the victim was recorded on 17.7.2015 wherein she had supported the prosecution case and she has given a vivid description as to how she was subjected to sexual harassment. The application which has been filed by the petitioner is dated 11.1.2016 which is almost six month from the date of institution of the FIR. The said application contains a vague statement that subsequently the the petitioner could know that her daughter had given a wrong statement implicating Deputy Development Commissioner, Khunti,. The application so submitted by the informant does not inspire confidence in view of inordinate delay as well as vague nature of her statement made in the said application. Section 164 (5) Cr.P.C. gives a discretion to the learned Magistrate to record a statement as evidence which in his opinion is best suited to the circumstances of the case. The statement of the victim namely Duli Gudia has been recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. immediately after the FIR was instituted. The subsequent application filed by the petitioner for getting the statement recorded under section 164Cr.P.C. and the contents and purports of the said application do suggest that it has been filed with an oblique motive only to delay the prosecution case against Deputy Development Commissioner, Khunti.

¶11

So far as the judgment, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the facts situation of the said case is quite different to the present case as in the case under reference, the application was preferred by the victim, in which she had stated that the police had taken her signature on a blank paper and has implicated an innocent person. In the present case, as has been stated herein above, the victim had already recorded her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. supporting the prosecution case and therefore the judgment which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶12

-3-

¶13

In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any reason to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti to record the statement of the petitioner under section 164Cr.P.C. and therefore having found no merit in this application, the same is dismissed.

¶14

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶15

Rakesh/

Phulmani Gudia v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phulmani Gudia v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahruddin Mian And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kishori Sah And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rajeev Ranjan Alias Happu And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md Abbas Ansari Alias Abbas Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jitendra Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand