Remanded

Binay Panna v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Aug 2018Cr.Rev./1032/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Jharkhand High Court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's discharge application under POCSO Act. The court held that the trial court failed to record findings on material pleas regarding the victim's age and lack of incriminating evidence, remanding the matter for fresh consideration within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.06.2017 rejected discharge application quashed; matter remanded to lower court for fresh order within six weeks.

Binay Panna Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 1032 of 2017

¶3

Binay Panna … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand 2. Amrita Kumari Lakra … Opposite Parties --CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ---

¶7

Order No. 05 Dated 13^th August, 2018

¶8

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2.

¶9

This application is directed against the order dated 22.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Lohardaga in connection with POCSO Case No. 01 of 2017 (Kisko P.S. Case No. 41 of 2016), whereby and whereunder, the discharge application preferred by the petitioner had been rejected.

¶10

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that various issues have been raised by the petitioner, but none have been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. Learned counsel further submits that on the alleged date of occurrence the informant was a major as per her own saying as also in view of the certificate which has been produced by the petitioner which shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 13.04.1997. He further submits that on the same day two F.I.R.s were instituted one against the petitioner and another against the wife of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the Doctor has opined that there was no sign of rape and that there is not even a fleeting reference of the materials collected in course of investigation which would suggest the involvement of the petitioner in committing the offence.

¶11

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has stated that the impugned order is a reasoned order which has considered all the aspects. So far as institution of two F.I.Rs. are concerned, they are with respect to separate cause of action which has also been considered by the

¶12

¶13

learned trial Court. It has been further submitted that the plea of the petitioner regarding date of birth of the victim, the purported photocopy of the academic certificate can very well be looked into in course of trial and not at this stage. Learned counsel further submits that the medical examination was only with respect to the injuries which has been suffered by the victim and no further.

¶14

On consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties, it appears that Kisko P.S. Case No. 41 of 2016 was instituted against the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. It also appears from the certificate which has been brought on record that the date of birth of the victim is 13.04.1997 which shows that the victim is a major and in fact in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she has disclosed her date of birth as 13.04.1997. After charge-sheet was submitted on completion of the investigation for the offences punishable u/s 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO, the petitioner preferred a discharge application which was rejected by order dated 22.06.2017.

¶15

It appears from the order dated 22.06.2017 that the plea of alibi has only been considered and the learned trial court has rightly come to a conclusion that the plea of alibi can only be proved in course of trial. However, so far as the other pleas which have been raised by the petitioner with respect to the victim being a major and that the materials collected in course of investigation do not point to the guilt of the petitioner does not find place in the order dated 22.06.2017. It is no doubt true that the learned trial court was not supposed to conduct a roving enquiry into the allegations or meticulously examine the material available on record in order to consider a discharge application, but it has at least to give a fleeting reference of the materials collected in course of investigation which would entail the prosecution of the petitioner.

¶16

As has been stated above that the learned trial court has only concentrated with respect to the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner and so far as the other pleas taken by the petitioner are concerned, there is no finding recorded by the learned trial court. In such view of the matter, therefore, the impugned order 22.06.2017 being not sustainable in the eyes of law, is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after hearing the respective parties, based

¶17

¶18

on the materials collected during investigation and on consideration of the pleadings advanced by both the sides. The aforesaid exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

¶19

This application stands disposed of.

¶20

It is made clear that any observation made by this Court in the present order shall not prejudice the learned trial court while considering the discharge application afresh.

¶21

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶22

Binay Panna v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binay Panna 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Sao Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Shambhu Nath Tiwary Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bishnu Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Samir Kumar Gupta And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Nand Lal Sahu Alias Nand Lal Prasad And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kiran Kumari Alias Kiran Devi And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand