Jharkhand High Court
Govind Mahto @ Govind Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 7 August, 2018
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 522 of 2017
Govind Mahto @ Govind Yadav ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, APP
----
07. 07. 08.2018: 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned APP for the State.
2. This application is directed against the order dated 07.03.2017 passed in S.C. No. 132 of 2008 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar, whereby the application preferred by the prosecution u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was allowed and the petitioner has been summoned to face trial.
3. It has been stated that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that the husband and other in-laws of the deceased had faced trial and they were acquitted by the learned trial Court. It has been stated that on the same set of allegation, the petitioner has been put on trial. The petitioner is an employee of Chitranjan Railway Factory and on the date of occurrence he was present on his duty and the Investigating Officer has been satisfied with his plea of alibi and therefore no charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner. Learned counsel thus submits that general allegations have been made against the accused persons and on such consideration the learned trial court had acquitted the persons who had faced the trial. It has been stated that the discretion which has been exercised by the learned trial court while allowing the application preferred by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is not as per the norms so as to allow the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and to summon an accused to face trial more than a prima facie case is required. In the facts and circumstances of the case he thus prays that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned APP has opposed the prayer of the petitioner.
5. It appears that Karon P.S. Case No. 11 of 2008 was instituted u/s 304B/ 34 I.P.C. against the accused persons including the petitioner. The allegation which was levelled in the F.I.R. was that the marriage of the deceased 2. was solemnized with Karu Yadav and since the demand made by the accused persons could not be fulfilled, she was subjected to mental and physical torture. It has further been alleged that the accused persons had put the deceased on fire and she was somehow rescued by the villages and thereafter she was taken to hospital for treatment but on 04.01.2008 she died in Bokaro General Hospital. In course of investigation charge-sheet was not submitted against the petitioner on the ground that on the fateful day he was not present at the place of occurrence and such plea was accepted by the Investigating Officer. After cognizance was taken charge was framed u/s 304B/34 I.P.C. against rest five accused persons and vide judgment dated 23.08.2017 all the accused persons were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
6. However, after the prosecution as well as the defence witnesses were examined, an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was filed in view of the fact that the witnesses have taken the name of the petitioner as being present at the time of the incident. The impugned order dated 07.03.2017 has been visited from which it appears that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have been taken into consideration and it appears that all the witnesses have taken the name of the petitioner along with other accused persons with respect to torture and cruelty meted out to the deceased as well as the fact about the presence of the petitioner at the time when the incident had taken place. Learned trial court on the same set of evidences formed an opinion which led in acquittal of the accused persons and on the other hand on the same set of evidence the learned trail court has allowed the petition of the prosecution filed u/s 319 and summoned the petitioner to face trial. Although consideration has been made to the plea of alibi, but the same has been disbelieved by the learned trial court and the learned trial court seems to have focused on the fact that although the deceased was in a position to speak and she was alive for a period of about 12 days from the date, the incident had taken place, her statement was never recorded by the Investigating Officer in presence of the Doctor. Such fact was of a considerable force for the learned trial court to have acquitted the five accused persons from the charge u/s 304B/34 I.P.C. The same set of evidence has led the learned trial court to summon the petitioner to face trial.
7. Higher degree of proof is necessary while allowing an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court had cautioned against 3. the cavalier use of Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning a person to face trial. The degree of proof required is more than prima facie case. In the case of rest five accused persons and on the basis of the same set of evidence the learned trial court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons and on the basis of same evidence summoning the petitioner to face trial at this juncture in view of the judgment which has already been passed by the learned trial on 23.08.2017 would not serve any fruitful purpose and it would be futile on the part of the prosecution to secure conviction of the petitioner.
8. In view of the changed circumstances, by which the other accused persons including the husband of the deceased have been acquitted by the learned trial court, the order dated 07.03.2017 by which the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. had been allowed by the learned trial court cannot subsist and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. This application is allowed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK