Allowed

Deepak Kumar Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Apr 2013CR. MISC./17596/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the Patna High Court quashed the charge and prosecution against the petitioner. The High Court held that the material available was insufficient to frame a charge as it lacked nexus with the occurrence, indicating only suspicion rather than strong suspicion, amounting to an abuse of court process.

What did the court decide?

The charge and prosecution against the petitioner were quashed.

Deepak Kumar Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17596 of 2012 (5) dt.01-04-2013

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17596 of 2012

¶4

====================================================== 1. Deepak Kumar Singh @ Dilip Kumar S/O Late Sachida Nand Singh Resident Of Vill.- Parsa Mathura, P.S.- Parsa, District- Saran .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mahesh Kumar, s/o Binda Kumar, resident of village Sarai Mathura, P.S. Sarai district Chapra .... Opposite Parties Appearance : For the petitioner .. Mr. Binor Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State .. Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER 5 01-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶5

This is a petition for quashing the order, dated 21,03,2012, passed in Sessions Trial No. 502 of 2011 by the District and Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, rejecting the petition under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code to discharge the petitioner.

¶6

The prosecution case, as alleged by the informant, Mahesh Kumar, that his nephew, Mintu Kumar, aged about 13 years, had gone to see a drama in the orchard of Laxman Kunwar, situated at a distance of one kilometer from his house. He did not return to his house. In the morning, the informant heard a hulla about the dead body of Mintu Kumar lying besmeared with blood in the paddy field and when the informant went there he saw the dead body injured with sharp cutting weapon on the person of the deceased. The further case is that Mintu Kumar has enmity with Bullu Kunwar, son of Mathura Kunwar, and his friends and raised suspicion that they may have killed his nephew.

¶7

On the fardbeyan, the first information report lodged and after investigation the police submitted charge sheet against Bullu Kunwar for offence under Sections 302 and 120B of the Penal Code. After submission of the charge sheet, the cognizance taken against both, Bullu Kunwar and the petitioner. However, the trial of Bullu Kunwar proceeded and the petitioner was arrested and subsequently the case of the petitioner was

¶8

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17596 of 2012 (5) dt.01-04-2013

¶9

2/3

¶10

committed to the Court of session that a petition was filed under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code for discharge on the ground that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner. The learned Session's Judge after taking into consideration the submission and material, available on record, rejected the petition on the ground that there is sufficient material against the petitioner. In paragraph 29 of the case diary the witness stated that the present petitioner used to be in company with coaccused, Bullu Kunwar, and the deceased and at the occasion of Durga Puja they have badly assaulted the deceased and so expressed suspicion about hand of the petitioner in the death of the deceased. Similar statement was recorded in paragraphs 30, 66 and 67 of the case diary. On the basis of these evidences the trial Court has held that at the stage of framing charge there is no meticulous examination of the evidence and the charge can be framed even on strong suspicion.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither there is legal evidence to be found in case diary nor any likelihood of any legal evidence being available justifying prosecution of framing of charge. The framing of the charge is illegal and amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶12

Now, taking into consideration the evidence and material against the petitioner, it is apparent that the first information report is against unknown. It has been stated that the dead body of the deceased was found in a paddy field with injury by sharp cutting weapon on his person. However, a suspicion has been raised that one Bullu Kumwar has killed the deceased. However, the name of the petitioner find place in paragraphs 29, 30, 66 and 67 of the case diary, in the statements of Shiv Kumar, Mina Devi, Babita Kumari and Savita Kumari. The only material in these paragraphs of the case diary is that this petitioner used to sit with Bullu Kunwar and they used to dance at Brahmsthan and Bullu Kunwar and Dilip Kumar at the time of Durga Puja had assaulted Mintu Kumar, deceased and, hence, a suspicion has been raised that they might have killed the deceased.

¶13

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17596 of 2012 (5) dt.01-04-2013

¶14

3/3

¶15

However, taking into consideration the evidence and the material, available in the case diary, the material, as stated above, indicates that there is no direct evidence. The material available in the case diary has neither any nexus with the occurrence nor even any motive for the occurrence. The material against the petitioner only indicates more suspicion much less than even strong suspicion. There is no direct evidence. The case hinges on circumstantial evidence and only material that petitioner had enmity with the deceased. There is no evidence that petitioner was last seen with the deceased. Hence, even the evidence does not prima facie indicate any chain of circumstance indicating the guilt of the petitioner being there is an abuse of the process of the Court as the material collected against the petitioner is not enough to conclude that there was sufficient material to frame charge or even to hold that there is strong suspicion against the petitioner. Hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and material collected by the police during investigation there is no material against the petitioner to implicate him in the commission of offence. There is neither any likelihood of new material coming up during trial. There was no material before the Session's Judge for framing of charge even on the basis of grave suspicion. The petitioner not even seen at the time and place of occurrence. The only material is that petitioner used to live with the co-accused and has assaulted once during Puja. The prosecution of this petitioner on the said charge of murder would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶16

In the circumstances, mentioned above, there is no ground for proceeding agains the petitioner for framing of charge and I quash the charge and prosecution against this petitioner .

¶17

In the result, the application is allowed .

¶18

(Gopal Prasad, J)

¶19

SA/-

Deepak Kumar Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. the State of Bihar

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

Chandradeo Bhagat and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Asmit Anand Jha @ Nunu Jha Vs The State Of Bihar

Kamali Mandal Vs The State Of Bihar

Vikash Kumar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Raju Sharma @ Ranjit Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar

Ajay Raj @ Sunil Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar