Jharkhand High Court
Shailendra Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 3 April, 2012
Author: D.N. Upadhyay
Bench: D.N. Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 496 of 2009
------
Shailendra Yadav ... ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary
2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Inspector General of Police, Dumka Zone, Dumka
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Parganas, Dumka
6. Superintendent of Police, Godda
7. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Godda
8. Officer-in-Charge, Poraiyahat Police Station, Godda
9. Shri Ashok Kumar, Officer-in-Charge -cum- Investigating Officer,
Poraiyahat Police Station, Godda
10. Dhiren Yadav
11. Mahavir Turi
12. Bhuneshwar Yadav .... ... .... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY
------
For the Petitioner : M/s Kailash Prasad Deo, Girish Mohan Singh,
Ashish Kr. & Gaurav, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, J.C. to G.P. 3
For Respondent No.10, 11 & 12: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
-----
0 /03.04.2012Heard Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.10, 11 & 12.
This writ petition has been filed in connection with Godda (Poraiyahat) P.S. Case No.165/08 registered under Sections 341, 326, 307 & 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
It appears that one Shailendra Yadav had given his fardbeyan on 02.09.2008 at 17.35 hours at Poraiyahat Police Station alleging therein that he was intercepted on the way by miscreants namely Dhiren Yadav, Mahavir Turi, Bhuneshwar Yadav and two unknown persons. It was also alleged that Dhiren Yadav took out pistol from his waist and opened fire causing injury to the petitioner. On the basis of fardbeyan Poraiyahat P.S. Case No.165/08 was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation the I.O. did not find the evidence against named accused persons and therefore they were exonerated. The evidence collected during investigation indicated involvement of Damodar Yadav and his associates who were chargesheegted and accordingly cognizance was taken against them. Since the petitioner is aggrieved with 2. the investigation he has filed a protest/complaint before the Court below and also filed this criminal writ petition seeking direction for further investigation to be done by a competent police officer nominated by S.P., Godda.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State and S.P., Godda have submitted that the investigation was rightly done by the concerned police officer. The reason for exonerating the named accused has been disclosed in the case diary and the reason for submitting chargesheet against other accused is also apparent.
After some arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has agreed that he would not press the protest/complaint in future, if further investigation is directed in the matter to find out the actual culprit.
I have perused the xerox copy of the case diary and I do not find that reason assigned by the concerned I.O. for exonerating the named accused and involving other accused, who were chargesheeted, stood supported with cogent evidence or statement of any independent witness. This conduct of the then I.O. suggest to have further investigation by a competent police officer.
In the circumstances stated above, the S.P., Godda is directed to nominate a competent police officer to conduct further investigation into the matter and after completion of the investigation submit report, as required under the law.
With these observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel appearing for the State for communicating the same to the concerned S.P. During pending further investigation, the Court below shall not further act upon against the accused persons who were chargesheeted and against whom cognizance has been taken.
(D.N. Upadhyay, J.) NKC