In State of Bihar vs. Gurusharan Ram & Ors. Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2004 (2012), Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah as judge of Patna High Court had delivered a 6-page long judgement dated July 23, 2012, wherein, while disposing of the matter, had concluded: "this Court, exercising suo motu power of revision under the Code quashes the order dated 06.06.2000 passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 270/45 of 2001 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 838 of 1999/13 of 2000. The Court below shall forthwith take steps for framing charges against the opposite parties and thereafter conduct the trial in accordance with law. The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms." The other two respondents were: 2. Mukesh Ram and Tinku Ram. The case was filed in the High Court The case was instituted on the basis of the order dated February 26, 2004 passed in Kaushalya Devi & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2012) Cr. Revision No. 992 of 2002 by which the High Court had exercised suo motu revisional power and issued notice to the opposite parties asking them to show cause as to why the order dated 06.06.2000 passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 270/45 of 2001 be not set aside. The order dated February 26, 2004 is not available on the High Court's website. The 4-page long judgement dated July 23, 2012 in the Kaushalya Devi's case too was authored by Justice Amanullah. Pranav Kumar was the A.P.P. in both the cases.
In the Kaushalya Devi's case, the revision application was directed against the order dated July 22, 2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 270 of 2001/45 of 2001 by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Munger by which the petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioner was rejected. The case was filed and registered in the High Court on October 31, 2002.
In his order, Justice Amanullah recorded that initially the case was filed against five named persons including the petitioners. Upon investigation initially the police submitted chargesheet only against the other three co-accused and not against the petitioners. Later on supplementary chargesheet was submitted against the petitioners also on the basis of further investigation. The other three co-accused had thus moved a petition under Section 227of the Code. By order dated June 6, 2000 the same had been allowed and they were discharged. The High Court while hearing the Kaushalya Devi's case on February 26, 2004 had issued notice to the other three co-accused as to why in exercise of suo motu revisional power the order dated June 6, 2000 be not set aside. Thus, a separate case was registered being Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2004 in which the High Court passed orders on July 23, 2012, quashing the order dated June 6, 2000 passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 270 of 2001/45 of 2001 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 838 of 1999/13 of 2000. In the said case, the High Court has gone through the evidence as recorded in the case diary and has came to the conclusion that there was sufficient material for proceeding with the trial and discharging the accused at that stage was not proper. Thus, for the same reasons as recorded in Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2004 in the order passed on July 23, 2022 in the case, as far as petitioner no. 1 who is mother-in-law of the deceased and was revision application stands dismissed. The order impugned dated July 22, 2002 as far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, was upheld. As far as petitioner no. 2, who was the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased is concerned, her husband as well as various other villagers of the place where she resides in her matrimonial home had categorically stated that one of the co-accused, her brother namely, Mukesh Ram had gone to her matrimonial home to inform her about the death of the deceased and thereafter she alongwith her husband had gone to her maternal home (Naihar) on February 13, 1999. In view of the fact that she was already married and living separately with the husband and that on the fateful day also nothing has come during investigation to indicate that she was present in her maternal home where the incident took place, the High Court does not find that there is sufficient ground to proceed against her. Thus, the impugned order dated July 22, 2002 as far as petitioner no. 2 was concerned was set aside. Consequently, she stood discharged from the case as well as from the liabilities of her bail bonds and sureties. The interim order dated June 30, 2004 staying further proceeding in Sessions Case No. 270 of 2001/ 45 of 2001 stood vacated. The High Court ordered that the lower Court records be sent for proceeding with the trial in light of the order passed in the present case as well as in Cr. Revision No. 300 of 2004 passed on July 23, 2012. \
On the basis of the order dated February 26, 2004, the case was instituted and notices issued to opposite parties who entered appearance. It was also ordered by this very order that the case of State of Bihar vs. Gurusharan Ram & Ors. of 2004 be listed along with the case of Kaushalya Devi & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar of 2002.
The A.P.P. for the State took the Court through the order dated June 6, 2000 by which the opposite parties were discharged. He submitted that the order is erroneous both on facts as well as in law. The police had submitted chargesheet against the opposite parties on the basis of materials which came during investigation and thus to discharge the opposite parties prior to trial was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel submitted that the Court had wrongly understood both the statement of the doctor as well as one Dhaneshwar Ram and given the benefit to the opposite parties. He submitted that the informant, who was the mother of the deceased, in her reinstatement as well as brother-
in-law (Bhainsur) of the informant had supported the prosecution story and during supervision also sufficient materials were found to exist for the opposite parties to be sent up for trial and accordingly chargesheet was submitted. He submitted that the doctor in his statement at paragraph no. 89 of the case diary had stated that on February 8, 1999 he had treated the deceased who had complained of pain. He stated that on February 9, 1999 also somebody had come to take advice with regard to the deceased having pain and he had given some medicine and also asked him to bring the patient so that she could be properly
treated. It was also stated that neither the boy returned nor the patient was brought to him. He submitsed that if her in-laws found that the deceased was having problems and needed treatment then they ought to have brought the deceased to the doctor on the 10th which was not done and only on February 12/13, 1999 when she was supposed to have died. Thus, according to him, there was no explanation as to why for 3-4 days she was not taken to the doctor in spite of her complaining of pain. He further submitted that there was consistent allegation that the opposite parties had harassed the deceased since opposite parties no. 2 and 3 being the brother-in-law (Dewar) were trying to establish illicit relationship with the deceased which was resisted and opposite party no. 1 being the father-in-law had also taken the side of the sons, that is, opposite parties no. 2 and 3. It was thus submitted that there was sufficient material to put the opposite parties on trial. The A.P.P. assailed the findings of the trial court with regard to Dhaneshwar Ram whose statement was at paragraph no. 89 of the case diary. He submitted that Dhaneshwar Ram had not stated that he had gone to the informant to inform about her death. He had only stated that opposite party no. 1 had asked him to inform the informant. The counsel submitted that there was no explanation in the entire investigation which explains as to why the opposite parties no. 2 and 3, who were the Dewars, had not gone and informed about the death. He further submitted that nothing had come during investigation to infer that the informant or her family members were aware of the death and had participated in the cremation. Thus, according to him it was sufficient to hold that the opposite parties were not keen to inform the informant about the death which raises bona fide and genuine suspicion with regard to the conduct and commission of the crime.
Justice Amanullah had verified the statements and submissions of learned A.P.P. for the State from the case records and was in agreement with the stand taken by him.
The A.P.P. contended that the decision of the Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M.Punchhi and K.T. Thomas in Shri Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr. 1997 BBCJ 53 (SC) as quoted and relied upon in the order dated June 6, 2000 did not support the case of the opposite parties and rather the ratio goes in favour of the prosecution inasmuch as in the said case the Supreme Court has held that if the Court feels that trial would be an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time, the proceedings should be terminated. He submitted that in the present case due to adequate material and evidence being available, the Court at the stage of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not justified to discharge the opposite parties in the manner it was done by the order dated June 6, 2000.
The A.P.P. took the High Court through the evidence of Raghubir Ram which is at paragraph no. 27 of the supplementary case diary and who is the husband of one of the accused, namely Rama Devi @ Rambha Devi, who is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased. He has stated that the informant and the brother-in-law of the informant had come to the house of the opposite parties on February 13, 1999 and were asking the opposite parties as to why they were not informed about the death of the deceased. Thus, it was stated that the informant and her family was not informed of the death and the body disposed off, which clearly proves that there was something to hide and thus discharge of the opposite parties at that stage was unjustified. It was stated that it will lead to miscarriage of justice. He also stated that his mother-in-law namely, Kaushalya Devi was unwell and bedridden since last two and a half months and thus the story and stand of the opposite parties that she had also accompanied the deceased while she had gone to ease herself is also falsified. He submitted that even the husband of the deceased was informed only belatedly, as per his own statement on February 14, 1999, which also goes to prove that the accused did not want anyone to see the body so as to enable them to know the real cause of death. Justice Amanullah had appreciated the assistance rendered by the A.P.P. for the State in the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment