Patna High Court - Orders
Rupam Pathak vs The State Of Bihar Through C.B on 8 January, 2013
Author: V.N. Sinha
Bench: V.N. Sinha, Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.393 of 2012
======================================================
Rupam Pathak, W/O Sri Ashok Pathak, Rajhans Public School (Sipahi
Tola), PS-Khajanchi Hat,District-Purnea
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar through C.B.I Bihar,Patna.
.... Respondent.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Diensh Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Informant : Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate.
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA)
6 08-01-2013Heard counsel for the appellant, Central Bureau of Investigation as also the informant Sudip Kumar who is nephew of the deceased, M.L.A.
2. By filing I.A. No.2075 of 2012 appellant has renewed her prayer for grant of bail during pendency of this appeal.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that she has been falsely implicated in the present case registered on 4.1.2011 as earlier she registered Khajanchi Hat P.S. Case No. 182 of 2010 on 28.5.2010 against the deceased and one Bipin Roy, Secretary of the deceased alleging offence of rape and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.393 of 2012 (6) dt.08-01-2013 2 other allied offences against the two.
4. Counsel for the informant and the Central Bureau of Investigation refuted such submission with reference to 164 Code of Criminal Procedure statement made by the appellant on 18.6.2010 stating that the occurrence of rape as alleged in Khajanchi Hat P.S. Case No.182 of 2010 is not true on the basis of which final form was submitted in the said rape case on 30.8.2010.
5. In rejoinder counsel for the appellant submitted that in the rape case appellant made statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 18.6.2010 under duress which has been retracted by filing protest-cum-Complaint Case No.633 of 2010 on 16.9.2010 in which cognizance was taken under order dated 12.8.2011 and the matter is sub judice in S.T. No.446 of 2012 before F.T.C. No.1, Purnea. Learned counsel also submitted that the present occurrence is false as finding that the appellant inflicted a dagger blow to the deceased in the light of the evidence of the eye witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6 and 10 is itself in doubt as appellant is found to have inflicted dagger blow on the date, time, place of occurrence and arrested at the place of occurrence but the dagger used by the appellant was not seized by P.W.13 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.393 of 2012 (6) dt.08-01-2013 3 Madhuri Kumari Probationer Sub Inspector who reached the place of occurrence first soon after the occurrence, arrested the appellant on 4.1.2011 at 10.30 A.M. vide Ext.C arrest memo. The dagger however was seized by Officer In-charge P.W.8 after he reached the place of occurrence at 1 P.M. for investigation vide seizure list Ext.11. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the discussion of the evidence in paragraph 15, 18, 20 and 25 of the judgment.
6. The dagger by which appellant is found to have given the blow to the deceased though seized but was not subjected to finger print examination as such according to counsel for the appellant it is difficult to conclude that the dagger seized was used by the appellant for inflicting the fatal wound on the appellant. Learned counsel also submitted that there has been considerable delay of about two days in dispatch and receipt of the FIR from K. Hat Police Station, Purnea to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea though both the police station and the court is situate in Purnea town at arms length.
7. In view of the omissions on the part of the prosecution to seize the weapon used at the time of arrest of appellant, delay in dispatch/receipt of the F.I.R. in court coupled with the factum of enmity between appellant and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.393 of 2012 (6) dt.08-01-2013 4 deceased prima facie, the evidence of the eye witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 10 appears to be doubtful and in such view of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant, Rupam Pathak, who is a lady be released on bail during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Patna in S.T. No.1020 of 2011. The observations made hereinabove will have no bearing of the merits of the appeal.
8. I.A. No.2075 of 2012 is accordingly allowed. Office is directed to prepare the paper book and expedite the hearing of the appeal.
(V.N. Sinha, J)
Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)