Jharkhand High Court
Rathendra Bishnu Nanhen vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 30 April, 2012
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H.C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No.283 of 2009
Rathendra Bishnu Nanhen @ R.B. Nanhe ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate
For the Respondents : J.C. to G.P.-III
-----
6 /30.04.2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Cr. Rev. No.05 of 2006, whereby the revision filed against the order dated 10.01.2006 passed by the learned C.J.M., Godda in P.C.R. No. 191 of 1998/TR No. 11 of 2006, taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 302 & 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, was rejected by the revisional Court below.
3. The facts of the case lie in a short compass. The petitioner is a police officer and it is alleged that he had arrested one Sk. Ibrahim, who died a custodial death. The complaint petition, being P.C.R. No. 191 of 1998 was filled by one Sheikh Sabali, son-in-law of the deceased, alleging that the petitioner and other co-accused persons had assaulted the deceased, due to which the deceased had died. It appears that in the stage of enquiry witnesses were examined by the Court below before charge, including the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the deceased, who proved that the deceased had died due to assaults, as the spleen of deceased was found ruptured. There were other marks of assaults also. The Court below, on the basis of evidence brought on record, took cognizance against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offence under Sections 302 & 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code order dated 10.01.2006 passed in P.C.R. No. 191 of 1998/TR No. 11 of 2006. It appears that against the said order, the petitioner filed revision before the court of Sessions Judge, Godda, which was registered -2- as Cr. Rev. No. 05 of 2006 and the said revision was also dismissed by the learned revisional Court below by the order dated 08.06.2009.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are absolutely illegal, in as much as, the Petitioner, being public servant was discharging his official duties and there was no sanction as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order is absolutely illegal.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon going through the impugned order, I find that there is direct allegation against the petitioner to have assaulted the deceased and there can no discharge of the official duty, in which, the deceased was assaulted in such a manner that he died in custody. Accordingly, I find that the petitioner is not protected under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and other co-accused persons under Sections 302 & 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned C.J.M., Godda took cognizance of the offence against them by order dated 10.01.2006 passed in P.C.R. No. 191 of 1998/TR No. 11 of 2006.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity either in the order dated 10.01.2006 passed by the learned C.J.M., Godda in P.C.R. No. 191 of 1998/TR No. 11 of 2006, or in the order dated 08.06.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Cr. Rev. No.05 of 2006. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
(H. C. Mishra, J) R.K.