The High Court dismissed the criminal revision challenging the trial judge's order rejecting a discharge application. The court found no illegality or error in the lower order.
Application for discharge rejected by lower court; revision against that order dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1177 of 2016
Heard Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
This application is directed against the order dated 19.08.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in connection with Sessions Trial No. 344 of 2013 by which an application u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge preferred by the petitioners has been rejected.
It has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that earlier the petitioner No. 2 had preferred Criminal Revision No. 194 of 2014 for discharge and the said application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2014 by which while the order dated 15.02.2014 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 344 of 2013 was set aside, the matter was remanded to the court below to pass necessary order since the impugned order was non-speaking one. It has been submitted that the oral dying declaration of the deceased Manoranjan Kumar Singh, which was alleged to be heard by the informant, has been falsified by the evidence of P.W. 2 and the implication of the petitioners is only on the basis of said declaration and therefore the petitioners deserve to discharged of the charges levelled against them.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners.
It appears that pursuant to the order dated 10.12.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 194 of 2014, the learned below had made a proper appraisal of the evidence available in the case diary in which it appears that there is strong circumstances against the petitioners of committing the murder of Saroj Singh @ Manoranjan Kumar Singh.
Several paragraphs of the case diary including the confessional statement of petitioner No. 1 have been dealt in details in the impugned order, which prima facie discloses commission of offence by the petitioners.
In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any illegality or error in the impugned order dated 19.08.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in connection with Sessions Trial No. 344 of 2013. This application therefore fails, which is accordingly dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
MK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court found any error in the trial judge's order rejecting the petitioners' application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC?
Whether the unspoken nature of the earlier order justified the current revision?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjay Singh
Vijay Singh @ Bijay Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
