Jharkhand High Court
Seeta Soren Alias Sita Soren vs The Union Of India Through C B I on 1 August, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (4) AJR 201
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2017
---
Seeta Soren @ Sita Soren, wife of late Durga Soren, resident of Quarter No. F - 34, Sector III, Dhurwa, P.O. - Hatia, P. S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner Versus The Union of India through C.B.I. ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Mr. K. P. Deo, Advocate
---
C.A.V. on 27.02.2017 Pronounced on 1.08.2017
Heard Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 07.12.2016 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate-Cum- Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ranchi in Case No. R. C. 02(S)/2014-PAT-R whereby and whereunder application for discharge preferred by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
A First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that the husband of the informant namely Vikash Kumar was forcibly taken away by the petitioner to her official residence being House No. F/34, Sector III, H.E.C. Colony, Ranchi. It has been stated that her husband is a witness who had given his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with another case.
Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 182 of 2013 the case was referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation which after investigation had submitted charge-sheet under Sections 195A, 323, 342, 365, 368, 506 of the Indian Penal Code pursuant to which cognizance was taken. An application for discharge was preferred by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. which, however, was rejected on 07.12.2016 and which is impugned to the present application.
It has been stated by Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 does not contain justifiable reasons for not discharging the petitioner from being criminally prosecuted. It has been stated that the court has to consider all the materials which have been collected in course of investigation but had adopted a pick and choose method by only considering those materials which favour the prosecution. It has been stated that no resistance was given -2- by the petitioner at the time of abduction as per the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of abduction. Learned senior counsel submits that the raison'd' etre for alleged kidnapping is the 164 Cr.P.C. statement given by Vikash Kumar in the case related to what is infamously known as Horse Trading case. Learned senior counsel further submits that the ingredients for secretly/wrong fully confining the husband of the informant by the petitioner is totally absent. Learned senior counsel further submits that witnesses Habibullha Ansari and Babu Chandra Prasad have clearly revealed that the abducted person had a mobile in which he was conversing which would show that it was not a case of forcible abduction. It has further been stated that the ingredient of Section 365 of Indian Penal Code was never present in the allegation levelled against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submits that the trial court totally misdirected itself in refusing to discharge the petitioner for the offence alleged as proper consideration has not been made to the contentions raised by the petitioner. Furthering his argument, it has been submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the learned trial court to advert to the entire materials collected in course of investigation and not specifically with only those materials which favour the prosecution and, therefore, the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 being not in accordance with law is liable to be set aside. Learned senior counsel in support of his contentions has referred to the judgment passed in the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another reported in AIR 1979 (SC) 366 and in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai And Others reported in (2009) 8 SCC 617.
Countering the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, has stated that a case is clearly made out against the petitioner of forcibly abducting the husband of the informant and confining him. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation has revealed about the specific role played by the petitioner. It has been submitted that not allowing the victim to be removed by the police would suggest wrongful confinement and in such circumstance, therefore, a case under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code apart from the other sections of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Replying to the contentions of the learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Jitendra Singh has referred to Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code and has stated that the 164 -3- Cr.P.C. statement does not make out any case under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code.
After the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation, investigation was conducted and in course of investigation it was detected that when the husband of the informant namely Vikash Pandey @ Santy Panday was going to his residence along with one Manoj Kumar who is his neighbour he was abducted by the petitioner who was the then sitting M.L.A. from Swami Sahjanand Chowk in her white colour Scorpio vehicle. It was further reveled that the petitioner had stepped down from the vehicle on coming across Vikash Panday @ Santy Panday and had thereafter slapped and humiliated him and he was forced to sit on her vehicle from where he was taken to her house. It was also disclosed in course of investigation that the victim was recovered from the residence of the petitioner and on being medically examined he was found to have suffered a simple injury which was caused by hard and blunt substance. The abduction and wrongful confinement of the victim has been supported by the witness Manoj Kumar who was also with the petitioner when the incident had taken place. The statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which he had stated that after his abduction and he was humiliated by the father of the petitioner as well as by the petitioner in her residence. The abduction of the victim by the petitioner was perhaps on account of the victim recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in connection with the case of Horse Trading. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim in the present case also reveals an offence of Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code as efforts were made to get the victim sign on a piece of paper perhaps in order to resile from his statement which he had given in the earlier case. The intent, therefore, was to abduct the victim and to confine him and only on account of immediate action on the report of his wife that the police managed to save the victim.
In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai And Others (Supra) it was held as follows:-
"52. In this case, the probative value of the materials on record has not been gone into. The materials brought on record have been accepted as true at this stage. It is true that at this stage even a defence of an accused cannot be considered. But, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of Mr Tulsi that where the entire materials collected during investigation have been placed before the court as part of the charge-sheet, the court at the time of framing of the charge could only look to those materials whereupon the prosecution -4- intended to rely upon and ignore the others which are in favour of the accused.
53. The question as to whether the court should proceed on the basis as to whether the materials brought on record even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety disclose commission of an offence or not must be determined having regard to the entirety of materials brought on record by the prosecution and not on a part of it. If such a construction is made, sub-section (5) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall become meaningless.
54. The prosecution, having regard to the right of an accused to have a fair investigation, fair inquiry and fair trial as adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot at any stage be deprived of taking advantage of the materials which the prosecution itself has placed on record. If upon perusal of the entire materials on record, the court arrives at an opinion that two views are possible, charges can be framed, but if only one and one view is possible to be taken, the court shall not put the accused to harassment by asking him to 10 face a trial. (See State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa .)"
The principles which govern an application for discharge has been considered by the learned trial court as more than a prima facie case has been found to be in existence to frame charges against the petitioner. The defence of the petitioner at this stage seems to be of a very fragile nature. Even otherwise in view of what has been discussed above, the allegation against the petitioner far out weighs the defence which has been taken by her and since there is an existence of more than a prima facie case against the petitioner the learned trial court was justified in refusing to discharge the petitioner vide order dated 07.12.2016.
As consequence to the discussions made hereinabove, I am not inclined to entertain this application and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-