The Criminal Bench remanded a writ petition alleging tampering of documents and case diary to the lower court for enquiry into genuineness and allegations of manipulation by either party.
Remanded to the court below to make a proper enquiry regarding tampering of the case diary and letter Annexure-7.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.6192 of 2011
====================================================== 1. Devjeet Kumar Singh S/O Arun Kumar Singh, Resident Of Village- Olapur Gangaur, P.S- Khagaria (Gangaur), District- Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Superintendent of Police, Khagaria. 3. Officer in Charge, Gangaur, P.S- Distt- Khagaria. 4. Laxman Singh, ASI & I.O. of the case(Gangaur),Khagaria P.S., Distt- Khagaria. 5. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (6) Madhu Kishore Singh and (7) Randhir Singh, all sons of late Yogendra Naran Singh of village Olapur Gangaur, PS-Gangaur, DisttKhagaria. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dronacharya, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rakesh Chandra, Adv. For the State Mr. M. Haque, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER
11 10-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
In this case, the petitioner has filed the application for giving a direction to the respondents to file the injury reports of Tarun Kumar Singh and Mastana Singh issued by P.M.C.H., Patna before the court below and also for a direction to take cognizance of the offence under sections 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Filtering unnecessary fact, it appears that a case bearing Khagaria (Gangaur) P.S. Case No. 116 of 2008 was instituted by one Devjeet Kr. Singh where the allegation has been made against the accused persons of committing loot and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6192 of 2011 (11) dt.10-09-2012
2 / 6
assaulted to uncle and the cousin mercilessly.
The F.I.R. was instituted under sections 147, 341, 323, 307, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and the Police in connivance with accused persons submitted the charge sheet under sections 147, 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
The grievance of the petitioner is that even after the direction of the court, the Police official did not submit the injury reports of P.M.C.H., Patna of Mastana Singh, cousin and Tarun Pd. Singh, uncle.
It has been submitted that they were treated in P.M.C.H. for about one month. Tarun Pd. Singh was admitted on 13.3.2008 and was released on 6.8.2008 where he had undergone operation by Dr. Captain Dilip Kr. Sinha and Dr. A.S. Sinha. The counsel for the petitioner is not sure about the Doctor who had treated Mastana Singh.
This Court issued notices to the private opposite parties as well as directed the State counsel to file counter affidavit on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3.
In pursuance of direction, Mr. Laxman Kr. Singh, Investigating Officer of the case and also the private opposite party Nos. 5 to 7 appeared and filed their respective counter affidavits and in their counter affidavits they have primarily stated
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6192 of 2011 (11) dt.10-09-2012
3 / 6
that the Police official while submitting the charge sheet had also filed all injury reports including the reports issued by the P.M.C.H., Patna.
It has been stated that the petitioner and opposite party Nos. 5 to 7 are own agnates and have been litigating altogether 21 cases and allegations made against Police personnel are completely vexatious, in order to put pressure on police with an intention to get undue favour from them.
It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the allegation that has been made against the Police official is completely wrong and the police has investigated the case as per the established law and never suppressed or never withheld any medical report issued by the concerned Hospitals.
The counsel for the State has submitted as per the records of the case, it creates a doubt about the admission of Tarun Pd. Singh in P.M.C.H. because as from injury report, Annexure-2, it appears that Tarun Pd. Singh was referred to P.M.C.H. on 12.3.2008 whereas Discharge Ticket of Tarun Pd. Sinha, Annexure-3, shows that he was admitted at P.M.C.H. on 25.4.2008 and was discharged on 6.5.2008. The statement made in paragraph 6 of this petition shows that Tarun Pd. Singh was operated in P.M.C.H. on 26.3.2008 which appears to be false. In
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6192 of 2011 (11) dt.10-09-2012
4 / 6
reply, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on various documents, part of supplementary affidavit pertaining to his treatment at P.M.C.H. (Annexure-10, 11, 12, 13 series and 14).
The issue, whether the petitioner was operated or not is not an issue before this Court, so this Court leaves this issue to be decided by the trial court. Only the issue that has been raised during the argument is, whether opposite parties have tampered the case diary and records of the case? As the order dated 16.6.2009 (Annexure-6) shows that the court below had directed the Police official to submit the medical reports and this order shows that the case diary was submitted upto paragraph 52 but no medical report of Tarun Pd. Singh and Mastan Singh pertaining to their treatment at P.M.C.H. was submitted before the court below and the court below vide order dated 16.9.2009 directed to submit the same so that the cognizance of the offence could be taken. The order dated 12.11.2009 Annexure-8, also shows, upto 12.11.2009 the medical reports of Mastana Singh and Tarun Pd. Singh were not on record and the court had directed to call for the reports from the P.M.C.H. through special messenger and the counsel for the petitioner submits that accordingly on 11.3.2009 Rs. 400/- was deposited for bringing the medical reports from the P.M.C.H.
The counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6192 of 2011 (11) dt.10-09-2012
5 / 6
on a letter Annexure-7 written Sri Laxaman Singh, I.O. to the Superintendent of P.M.C.H., Patna where it has been mentioned that the injury reports of Mastana Singh and Tarun Pd. Singh had not been received and prayer was made to send the same. This letter, on the left hand side bears the words S.B. and date.
The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was endorsed by the Presiding Judge, Sri Shaktidhar Bharti and in token thereof he had put his initial as “SB” and also date.
The counsel for the opposite parties has raised serious dispute about the genuinity of this document and submitted that this document is not on record of court below nor the same is a certified copy of the original document.
The counsel for the private opposite parties has submitted that cognizance was taken on 29.6.2009 so the question of endorsement by the aforesaid Presiding Officer on 26.9.2009 does not arise and they have submitted that it is completely a manufactured and tampered document.
This Court at this stage is not going to decide disputed question of fact as there is a claim and counter claim from both sides. Both sides are making allegation and counter allegation against each other about tampering of documents.
In this view of the matter, this Court is remanding the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6192 of 2011 (11) dt.10-09-2012
6 / 6
matter to the court below with a direction to make a proper enquiry about tampering of case diary or letter (Annexure-7 of this petition) as has been alleged by the petitioner of tampering case diary and counter allegation has been made about the endorsement made in the letter written by Laxman Singh, I.O. addressed to the Superintendent of P.M.C.H., Patna. If the court below would come to a conclusion that the petitioners or the opposite parties have any way tampered the document, the court below will initiate a proceeding as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
With this observation and direction, this petition is disposed of.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
Mahesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether allegations of tampering with the case diary and documents require enquiry before disposing of the petition.
Whether to issue directions for proper enquiry into the genuineness of documents and allegations of tampering.
Devjeet Kumar Singh
The State Of Bihar
Superintendent of Police, Khagaria
Officer in Charge, Gangaur, P.S
Laxman Singh
Sudhir Kumar Singh
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
