Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Kumar Singh @ Bijendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand Thr C.B.I on 21 December, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI,
Cr.Rev. No. 42 of 2008
Bacha Singh @ Bachcha Singh .................................... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through C.B.I................................... Opp. Party
With
Cr. Rev. No. 837 of 2007
Brajendra Kumar Singh @Bijendra Singh...........................Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through CBI,Ranchi............................Opp. Party
With
Cr. Rev. No. 40 of 2008
Shashi Singh ...........................................................Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through CBI Dhanbad......................... Opp. Party
With
Cr. Rev. No. 153 of 2008
Ramadhir Singh @ Ramadhin Singh............................... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through CBI .................................. Opp. Party
Coram :- Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Sinha
For the Petitioner :-Mr. B.P. Pandey Sr. Advocate.
(In Cr. Rev. NO. 42/2008) :- Mr. M.B. Lal Advocate.
For the Petitioners :-Mr. Deepak Kumar,Advocate.
(other Cr. Revisions) :-Mr. Manoj Kumar Advocate.
For the CBI :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar,S.C.CBI
Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati
C.A.V. on 28.10.2009 Delivered on 21-12-2009
ORDER
16/ 21-12-2009All the four Criminal Revisions are directed against the order impugned dated 5.9.2007 passed by the S.D.J.M.-cum-Special Judge, CBI Dhanbad arising out of R.C. Case No. 5(S)/04 by which the petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners seperately under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge for the alleged offence under sections 143/149/225/506/353/34 Indian Penal 2 Code were rejected by the common order as aforesaid and the petitioners were called upon to stand charge.
2. The prosecution story in short was that while the informant- police officer along with other police personnel went to arrest the accused Ramadhin Singh and Rajiv Ranjan Singh in their office in connection with Dhanbad(Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 638 of 2003 of the alleged offence of murder, it was alleged that the accused Ramadhin Singh, who was there in the office, resisted such his arrest by raising alarm, as a result of which his supporters about 150-200 in number assembled there and obstructed the police personnel facilitating Ramadhin Singh who managed to escape from the custody of the police by thrashing a constable. In the same sequence it was alleged that in the meantime the accused-petitioner Baccha Singh, the then Cabinet Minister in the Jharkhand Government suddenly arrived there on his vehicle and threatened the informant-police officer and members of the police party present there of dire consequences. On the statement of the informant, Jharia P.S. Case No. 330 of 2003 was registered for the offence under sections 143/224/353 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons with specific allegation that they forcibly got the accused Ramadhin Singh released from the police custody. The occurrence took place on 3.10.2003.
3. A Criminal writ vide W.P.(Cr.) No. 239 of 2003 was preferred by one Santosh Kumar Singh prior to the instant Criminal Revision and this Court by order dated 27.1.2004 directed the CBI to take up the matter and to investigate both the Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 638 of 2003 and Jharia P.S. Case No. 330 of 2003 and pursuant to such direction the CBI registered R.C. Case No. 5(S)/04 and after detailed investigation submitted charge sheet against as many as 10 accused persons including the petitioners herein under sections 143/ 149/ 224/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Cr. Rev.No. 42 of 20084. The learned Sr. Counsel Mr.B.P.Pandey at the outset submitted that the petitioner Bacha Singh @ Bachcha Singh being the Cabinet Minister at the relevant time was intentionally implicated in the instant case due to political rivalry without his participation whatsoever in the alleged offence which could be evident from the written statement of the informant presented at the first instance. The informant was specific that no sooner did the principal accused Ramadhir Singh escaped from the custody of the police after thrashing the constable, the petitioner Bacha Singh @ Bachcha Singh arrived 3 there by his own vehicle and threatened the police administration of dire consequences by extending threat to the informant and the police party. Even if the contention of the informant could be taken as per his narration, no offence much less alleged as proposed by the prosecution for charge could be made out against the petitioner, and therefore, he may be discharged. Advancing his argument the learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. Pandey submitted that section 224 of IPC deals with resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension and it was no where alleged that the petitioner Bacha Singh @ Bachcha Singh had ever resisted or obstructed in the duty of the police personnel or that there was allegation that the police party had gone there only to arrest the petitioner Bacha Singh @ Bachcha Singh and he resisted such arrest or that Bachcha Singh was wanted in a murder case or any other offence cognizable in nature, therefore, no offence much less the offence proposed by the prosecution is made out against him and the learned Special Judge grossly erred by refusing to discharge him without appreciating this material aspect .
5. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati J.C. to Mr. Rajesh Kumar S.C. CBI opposed the contention and submitted that the CBI after investigation submitted charge sheet against as many as ten accused persons including the petitioner Bachcha Singh. The witnesses were consistent, who were examined in course of investigation that at the relevant time of the alleged occurrence the petitioner Bacha Singh @ Bachcha Singh, who was the brother of the principal accused Ramadhir Singh, arrived at the scene and started showering abuses at the police party and threatened them of dire consequences and also threatened that he would get the Jharia police station burnt, if the police party would attempt to arrest Ramadhir Singh. The witnesses were consistent that Bacha Singh @ Bachcha Singh along with his supporters pushed aside SI Harish Chanda Singh and other members of the police party which caused shock to the police administration who felt demoralized and could not re-arrest Ramadhir Singh. The witnesses, Harish Chandra Singh, Sudarshan Prasad Mandal, Anil Shankar and Chaturbhuj Jha were those witnesses who alleged the overt act attributed against the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the CBI, I find prima facie materials without touching the merit of case to proceed against the petitioner for the alleged charge except the proposed charge under section 224 of the Indian Penal Code as he was not the person who 4 resisted his arrest and escaped from the police custody. With this observation his Cr. Rev. for discharge stands rejected.
7. Cr. Rev. No. 837 of 2007 Cr. Rev. No.40 of 2008 Cr. Rev. No.153 of 2008For all the aforesaid Criminal Revisions Mr. Deepak Kumar, the learned counsel, assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar, advanced a common argument that the petitioner of these Criminal Revisions viz Brajendra Kumar Singh @ Bijendra Singh, Shashi Singh and Ramadhir Singh @ Ramadhin Singh were innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case without material on record. The petitioner Brajendra Kumar Singh @ Bijendra Singh, who was a registered Government Contractor of Jharkhand, on the alleged date and time of occurrence was engaged in a contract work at Deoghar and no overt act was attributed against him about his participation in the FIR. However it could be reflected that two witnesses viz Anil Shankar and Chaturbhuj Jha had named one Bijendra Singh without disclosing his parentage and address as one of the members who was there in the mob and that without verifying the identity of such Bijendra Singh the CBI submitted charge sheet against the petitioner who is Brajendra Kumar Singh. Similarly, the Special Judge,CBI without considering this aspect and without application of judicial mind dismissed the discharge petition of the petitioner by the common impugned order. Even the court did not deal with the petition of the petitioner filed under section 239 Cr.P.C. separately.
8. Contrary to that Mr. Deepak Kumar, J.C. to Mr. Rajesh Kumar, S.C. CBI submitted that though the name of the petitioner Brajendra Kumar Singh @ Bijendra Singh did not appear in the FIR but the witnesses were consistent that the petitioner was spotted among the supporters of the principal accused who aided by facilitating Ramadhir Singh to escape from the police custody and such attribution was prima facie sufficient for framing of charge against the petitioner Brajendra Singh @ Bijendra Singh. The learned J.C to S.C. conceded that admittedly no offence under section 224 IPC was attributed against him.
9. As regards Cr. Rev. No. 40 of 2008 with respect to the petitioner Shashi Singh, the learned counsel, Mr. Deepak Kumar submitted that even though no overt act has been attributed against the petitioner but the CBI implicated him without any legal evidence and submitted charge sheet against him. The CBI failed to bring 5 about prima facie material against the petitioner on the charge proposed by the prosecution for the alleged offence under sections 143/149/225/506/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation, the police party had not arrived there to arrest the petitioner who resisted, in such circumstances offence alleged under section 224 IPC was not attributed against him. Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, the learned J.C. CBI with reference to the case diary submitted that the complicity of the petitioner was attributed in the statements of the witnesses, Sri. Sudarshan Prasad Mandal, S.I. Ravinder Prasad, Sri. Anil Shanker, O.C. CID,Sri Chaturbhuj Jha S.I and Sri. Krishna Kumar Rai,S.I of police and such statements were sufficient to be treated as prima facie materials against the petitioner Shashi Singh for framing of charge against him.
10. With reference to Cr. Rev.No. 153 of 2008 the learned counsel,Mr. Deepak Kumar submitted that the petitioner Ramadhir Singh @ Ramadhin Singh has been projected as the principal accused in this case by presenting the prosecution case that when the informant along with police personnel went to the office premises of the petitioner to arrest him pursuant in connection with a murder case arising out of Dhanbad(Dhansar) P.S. Case no 638 of 2003 on 3.10.2003, he resisted and escaped from the custody of the police and therefore, offence under sections 143/224/353/ and other sections of IPC were attracted against him. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had been exonerated by the CBI after investigation from his criminal liability of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 638 of 2003 and therefore, his physical arrest was not at all warranted in the alleged murder case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the police administration with the ill motive though attempted to arrest him without any proper warrant of arrest but when the police did not find him there and it was alleged that he resisted his arrest and escaped .The petitioner is innocent who became the prey of criminal conspiracy that was hatched against him by rival party in the murder of one Promod Kumar Singh. Though in the alleged murder of Promod Kumar Singh FIR was instituted against several accused persons but the allegation was attributed that the petitioner Ramadhir Singh @ Ramadhin Singh was the shooter, yet the same was fond false in course of investigation by the CBI and he was not sent up for trial in Dhanbad(Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 638 of 2003. Therefore, the entire exercise of the police party was in prosecution of malafide intention. Even no case under sections 143/ 149/ 224/506 6 /353 /34 of the Indian Penal Code in the facts and circumstances was attracted in which the CBI submitted charge sheet against 10 accused including him. The counsel pointed out that cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner and others only under sections 143/ 149 /225 /506 /353 /34 of the Indian Penal Code but the learned SDJM-cum- Special Judge, CBI added under section 224 of IPC against all the accused persons by proposing charge and then dismissed the petitions on behalf of the petitioners filed under section 239 of the Cr.P.C. by the common impugned order which was liable to be set- aside.
11. Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned J.C. CBI strongly controverted the contention and explained that the petitioner Ramadhir Singh @ Ramadhin Singh is the principal accused and the witnesses were consistent in course of investigation that he resisted and got him released from the police custody after thrashing the police constable with the help of his supporters in presence of a number of witnesses and therefore, the materials available in the case diary were prima facie sufficient materials for framing of charge against him under the relevant sections of IPC including one under section 224 of IPC and his petition preferred under section 239 of Cr.P.C. was rightly rejected.
12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the CBI, I find that the Standing Counsel CBI could be able to precisely point out the prima facie materials against the petitioner as referred to herein before for the proposed charge to be framed against the petitioners but the with the observation that the charge proposed under section 224 IPC is attracted only against the petitioner Ramadhir Singh @ Ramadhin Singh. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the Criminal Revisions failed to show any positive ground to call for interference in the order impugned dated 5.9.2007 passed by the SDJM-cum- Special Judge, CBI Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 5(S)/04. Therefore, there being no merit all the Criminal Revisions are dismissed with the observation made herein before. Let the trial be expedited after framing of charge.
(D.K.Sinha, J) SD