Jharkhand High Court
Kunal Alias Kunal Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 November, 2016
Equivalent citations: 2017 CRI. L. J. 3011, 2017 (2) AJR 561 (2017) 1 JCR 732 (JHA), (2017) 1 JCR 732 (JHA)
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1431 of 2016
---------
Kunal @ Kunal Kumar Mahto, S/o Upendra Lal Mahto, aged
about 20 years, resident of Tutaki, P.O.- Tutaki Nawadih, P.S.-
Silli, District- Ranchi. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Ram, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
---------
02/17.11.2016Heard Mr. Nand Kishore Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the Informant.
In this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned A.J.C. XVII, Ranchi in Lalpur P.S. Case No. 113 of 2015 arising out of G.R. No. 2694 of 2015 corresponding to ST No. 111 of 2016 by which the application preferred by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been a considerable delay in instituting the First Information Report as the occurrence had taken place on 2nd February, 2015 whereas the First Information Report was lodged on 9th February, 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even in course of investigation the complicity of the petitioner was found to be absent as no incriminating substance was recovered to suggest otherwise. It has further been submitted that as per the call detail reports the petitioner was never in contact with the deceased which further falsified the prosecution case. It has been submitted that the alleged suicide note was never produced at the time of the incident and the same is also doubtful document as the same was produced subsequent to the incident. It has also been submitted that Amit Kumar who had given statement -2- u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has not implicated the petitioner in abetting the suicide of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that in course of investigation from Face Book Account of the deceased nothing could be found which would suggest that the petitioner has uploaded some obscene photographs of the deceased which would have caused mental torture to the deceased leading to her committing suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that these facts have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court while refusing to discharge the petitioner from being prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code and 66 D of the Information Technology Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Chheena versus Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. reported in [2010 (4) East Cr C 1 (SC)].
Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the Informant has supported the impugned order and has stated that in several paragraphs of the case diary witnesses have supported the fact that on account of torture and attempts for black mailing made by the petitioner, the deceased was forced to commit suicide. It has also been submitted that the torture of the deceased is disclosed in the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the disclosure made by the deceased on 02.02.2015 with respect to the disturbance which has been created by the petitioner and the threat of uploading her obscene photographs in Face Book. Learned counsel for the Informant further submits that the detail reason has been given in the impugned order dated 28.09.2016 and in such circumstances therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed.
It appears that earlier the petitioner had filed an application for discharge which was rejected vide order dated 22.04.2016. Against the same the petitioner had preferred Cr. Revision No. 623 of 2016 before this Court and vide order dated 18.07.2016 the matter was remanded back to the learned trial court, since no reasons had been assigned in the order dated -3- 24.04.2016. After remand the order dated 28.09.2016 have been passed which is impugned in the present application.
It appears from the impugned order that several incriminating circumstances do point to the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in abetting the commission of the suicide of the deceased. Several witnesses whose statements have been recorded in paragraphs 2, 6, 8, 19, 32 and 48 have been mentioned in the impugned order which suggests that the petitioner was trying to blackmail the deceased which ultimately led her to commit suicide. The suicidal note was also seized in which there is categorical aspersion against this petitioner of his act leading the deceased to commit suicide. The circumstances which has been enumerated in the impugned order dated 28.09.2016 do suggest the role which has been played by the petitioner in compelling the deceased to commit suicide. The impugned order therefore has dealt in details the entire materials collected in course of investigation which clearly leads to the conclusion that prima facie the involvement of the petitioner is palpable as on account of the fact that the deceased was led to take the ultimate step by committing suicide on being abetted by the petitioner.
So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing to the factual aspect of the case of the judgment under reference, the perusal of the same reveals that the appellant in that case was never named in the First Information Report and only on an application during the trial u/s 319 Cr.P.C. he was made an accused and considering the fact that there was no material which could lead to the conviction of the said appellant such appeal was allowed. The facts and circumstances of the present case as has been stated above is quite different to the case under reference as in the present case the petitioner happens to the sole accused and the surrounding circumstances do suggest the involvement of the petitioner which led the deceased to commit suicide.
-4-In such view of the matter, therefore, no reason exists to interfere in the impugned order dated 28.09.2016 and having found no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Alok/-