Dismissed

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Jun 2016Cr.Rev./24/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal revision challenging the order rejecting an application to summon two additional accused persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the trial court recorded detailed reasons and found no prima facie case against the accused.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.12.2015 rejecting application under section 319 Cr.P.C. is upheld and present application is dismissed.

Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 24 of 2016

¶3

Jitendra Kumar Singh, S/o Sudama Singh, Resident of Village-Piri, P.O. Patan, P.S. Patan, District-Palamau. ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

….O pposite Party

¶7

Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, APP

¶9

06/14.06.2016 Heard the parties.

¶10

This application is directed against the order dated 15.12.2015, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in S.T. No. 177 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the informant under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Akhilesh Pandey @ Akhilesh Singh and Janeshwar Pandey @ Janeshwar Singh @ Bablu Singh for being made an accused has been rejected.

¶11

It appears that earlier the application under section 319 Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the learned trial court, was a subject matter of challenge in Cr. Revision No. 1253 of 2015, in which this Court vide order dated 4.12.2015 had set aside the order dated 21.09.2015 and had remitted the matter to the learned court below to pass the order based on the evidence of the witnesses examined during trial. Pursuant to the order of remand, the learned trial court had passed the impugned order dated 15.12.2015, which is under challenge in the present application.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are sufficient evidences against Akhilesh Pandey @ Akhilesh Singh and Janeshwar Pandey @ Janeshwar Singh @ Bablu Singh to array them as accused in the trial. It has been submitted that the learned trial court has exercised its jurisdiction beyond its power while considering each and every aspect of the evidence of the witnesses including cross examination and thereafter came to a finding that there is no material to send Akhilesh Pandey @ Akhilesh Singh and Janeshwar Pandey @ Janeshwar Singh @ Bablu Singh to face trial. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the trial court has given detailed

¶13

-2-

¶14

reasons and has also taken into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2014 (1)JBCJ SC 293 (SC). It has been submitted that there is no material, which has come in course of evidence of the witnesses so as to detect the complicity of the petitioner as having taken part in conspiracy with the aid of section 120 B Cr.P.C. It has, thus, been submitted that the present application is liable to be dismissed in view of detailed reasons, which have been given by the learned trial court.

¶15

It appears that pursuant to the order dated 4.12.2015, passed in Cr. Revision No. 1253 of 2015, the trial court had considered the issue by passing the impugned order dated 15.12.2015. It further appears that while considering the issue at hand various judgments were also taken into consideration as also the evidence which has been led by the prosecution and has ultimately come to a conclusion that no prima facie case is made out against Akhilesh Pandey @ Akhilesh Singh and Janeshwar Pandey @ Janeshwar Singh @ Bablu Singh to make them face trial. It also appears that the evidence of the witnesses have been discussed in detail while coming to such conclusion. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 has been taken into consideration wherein the involvement of Akhilesh Pandey @ Akhilesh Singh and Janeshwar Pandey @ Janeshwar Singh @ Bablu Singh is conspicuously absent.

¶16

In view of the above, I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order dated 15.12.2015. Accordingly, there being no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶17

( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶18

Rakesh/

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Singh 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

Om Prakash Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Uttam Raut Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Mahendra Rawani Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Hifza Arif Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mahendra Dusadh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Bihari Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.