Ram Swarath Mahto & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 26 September, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Patna High Court - Orders

Ram Swarath Mahto & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 26 September, 2013

Bench: Gopal Prasad

    Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24328 of 2012 (2) dt.26-09-2013

                                               1/3




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 Criminal Miscellaneous No.24328 of 2012
                 ======================================================
                 1. Ram Swarath Mahto S/O Late Aganu Mahto R/O Vill-Fakaut, P.S.-
                 Khodabandpur, Distt-Begusarai
                 2. Lakshman Mahto S/O Late Aganu Mahto R/O Vill-Fakaut, P.S.-
                 Khodabandpur, Distt-Begusarai                   .... Petitioners
                                                  Versus
                 1. The State Of Bihar                           .... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD
                 ORAL ORDER

2 26-09-2013

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

This is a petition for quashing the order, dated 05.05.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, I, Begusarai, in S. Tr. No. 705 of 2010, by which a petition under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been rejected.

The case proceeded on complaint and, thereafter, first information report was lodged on 07.08.2010.

The prosecution case, as alleged in the first information report, is that after selling the readymade clothes was going, then, she was called for purchasing the clothes and she was taken to maize field and Ramswarath Mahto and Laxman Mahto and committed rape upon her and on cry of the victim the people came there and saw the accused persons and, thereafter, the victim called Chandeshwar Paswan and disclosed about the episode.

The police, after investigation, submitted the final form, but, the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate, disagreeing with the police report and the case was committed to the Court of sessions.

Subsequently, a petition under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for discharge. The said petition has been rejected by the impugned order.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24328 of 2012 (2) dt.26-09-2013 2/3

The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that petitioner no. 1 is seventy years old and petitioner no. 2 is thirty years and they uncle and nephew. It is submitted that it is highly improbable that uncle and nephew will go simultaneously for committing the crime under Section 376 of the Penal Code. It has, further, been contended that one Arvind Mahto is an accused of murder of brother of petitioner no. 1 and uncle of petitioner no. 2 and his trial is going on and it is submitted that two pressurize the petitioners, this false case has been filed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to say the stage of trial, which is going on against Arvind Mahto, nor is unable to say about these petitioners have been witnesses of that case or whether deposed in that case or not. However, it has been asserted that to pressurize the petitioners, the said Arvind Mahto is in jail and it is stated that Arvind Mahto has set up the victim for lodging a false case. However, except the submissions there is no material to connect the petitioners and on that basis the learned counsel for the petitioners has made averments about setting up of the victim by the accused person, Arvind Mahto.

However, it is well settled that at the stage of the framing of the charge the Court is required to see prima facie whether allegation made in the complaint and the statement of the witnesses and material collected during the investigation trial on the face value whether makes out an offence. The Court at that stage can neither go into the question whether the allegation is true or false nor can take into consideration the defence of the accused nor the trial Court can meticulously examine the material, but, has only to see whether on the allegation made on the material collected during Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24328 of 2012 (2) dt.26-09-2013 3/3 the investigation taken on the face value and prima facie offence made out or not. However, it has been stated that there are material and since the victim has supported the prosecution case and the other witnesses having supported that prima facie offence is made out, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order.

This petition is rejected.

(Gopal Prasad, J) SA/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court - Orders