Patna High Court - Orders
Gajendra Kumar Singh @ Gajendra Singh @ ... vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 25 June, 2013
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1328 of 2013
======================================================
1. Gajendra Kumar Singh @ Gajendra Singh @ Munmun Singh, S/O Shiva
Bachan Singh,
2. Shiva Bachan Singh, S/O Late Baleshwar Singh
3. Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Dharmendra Singh @ Bhuntu S/O Shiva
Bachan Singh
4. Amrendra Kumar Singh @ Pintu, S/O Shiva Bachan Singh
5. Shailendra Singh, S/O Shiva Bachan Singh, all resident of Village-
Jamalpur, P.S. Koilwar, District- Bhojpur.
6. Amrendra Kumar Singh @ Gudu @ Satyendra Singh, S/O Jitendra
Singh, R/O Laxmipur, Krishnagrah, District - Bhojpur
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vevekanand Singh, S/O Late Chhathu Singh, R/O Village - Jamalpur,
Police Station - Koilwar, District - Bhojpur
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Dr. Maya Nand Jha, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
7 25-06-2013Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 1.11.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in S.T. No.329 of 2012 by which he has refused to discharge the petitioners.
As per the allegation made in the First Information Report on 28.3.2004 at about 1 P.M. Mithilesh Singh, nephew of the informant came at the house and stated that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1328 of 2013 (7) dt.25-06-2013 2 accused persons, namely, Shailendra Singh alias Munmun Dharmendra Singh alias Bhuntu Amrendra Singh alias Pintu, Saroj Singh, Manoj Singh, Dara alias Munmun Singh, Deepak Singh, Ajit Singh assaulted his son, namely, Hari Kumar with lathi, danda, farsa, country made pistol and licensee gun causing injury. On hearing this information the informant rushed to the place of occurrence, there accused Shiva Bachan Singh, Satyendra Singh, Gajendra Singh and other accused persons standing on the roof of the house of Shiva Bachan Singh and Rajendra Singh was exhorting to kill him whereupon the accused persons started firing which caused injury to the informant, his nephew and one Nirmala Devi. Allegation has also been made that accused persons also snatched away Rs.3600/-.
The court below on the basis of the charge-sheet took cognizance and thereafter an application for discharge was filed. The court found material and discussed the same for coming to a finding of strong suspicion as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568 has given the para-meter that at the stage of considering the matter of discharge meticulously examination of the material collected Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1328 of 2013 (7) dt.25-06-2013 3 during investigation is not permissible and it has to be confined to the prosecution material not the defence which will be seen at trial stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even if material that has come during investigation and the admitted facts made in the First Information Report are inherently improbable, it completely falls within the parameter that has been laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, reported in A.I.R. 1988 SC 709 and in the case of State of Hariyana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in A.I.R. 1992 SC 604.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that argument that has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is inviting the court to weigh the evidence and come to conclusion of innocence which is not permissible that will be seen at the stage of trial. In support of his submission he has relied on the judgment in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368.
Having considered the rival contentions of learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1328 of 2013 (7) dt.25-06-2013 4 counsel for the parties, at this stage strong suspicion is sufficient for framing of charge. The court below has recorded the material and come to a conclusion that the materials are sufficient for proceeding in the matter as at this stage this Court cannot go to evaluate all materials including evidentiary value and to weigh the evidences that have come during investigation or to consider the defence at this stage that will be only seen at the stage of trial.
This Court does not find any merit in this application. Accordingly this application is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to raise all points before the court below at the appropriate stage and the court will pass the judgment in accordance with law without being prejudiced the order of this Court.
Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)