Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.71 of 2012 ====================================================== Sushil Prasad Yadav, Son of Bhusiya Yadav, R/o-Vill.-Chandheri, P.S.- Sabour, District-Bhagalpur. … ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Law Secretary, Law Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate & Collector, Bhagalpur. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur. 4. Mrs. Sakina @ Hasina Begum, W/o-Md. Usman, resident of village- Chandheri, P.S.-Sabour, District-Bhagalpur, presently residing at Mohalla-Fasia Dangal, Godda Town, P.S.-Godda, District-Godda (Jharkhand). 5. Mrs. Malika Begum, W/o-Md. Taj, resident of village-Chandheri, P.S.-Sabour, District-Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) 4 13-02-2012 By this writ application, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus to be issued consequent upon enquiry that the persons for whose death he had been charged and convicted is said to be alive. We are of the view that the writ application does not require consideration and should not be entertained for the following reasons. In October, 1989 at Bhagalpur what is now known as Bhagalpur Riots took place. A large number of people of particular community were killed. In a trial, upon investigation, a substantive police case was instituted and, consequent thereto, Patna High Court CR. WJC No.71 of 2012 (4) dt.13-02-2012 2/5 about 38 persons were charged for rioting and killing amongst them was the petitioner. He was charged for killing two persons Hasibuddin and one Bibi Sakina @ Hasina along with other persons. The Trial Court, upon evidence being recorded, in its judgment dated 05th February, 2001 of the 7th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No.342/91 (R) recorded conviction as against the petitioner under Section- 302/149 IPC read with [STATUTE] . We have perused the judgment aforesaid. From the judgment, it is clear that the Trial Court upon evidence and upon identification held him guilty under Section-302/149 of the Indian Penal Code along with other accused persons in connection with death of the two persons as noted above. The petitioner had raised a plea of alibi which was also considered and rejected. As against the judgment large number of appeals and Government appeals were preferred. The appellant also preferred appeal before Division Bench of this Court being Criminal Appeal (DB) No.87/2001. It appears that when the appeal was pending petitioner came to understand that one of the persons for whose death the appellant was charged and convicted, namely, Bibi Sakina @ Hasina was alive. He filed an interlocutory application, being I.A. No.677 of 2004, requesting this Court in terms of Patna High Court CR. WJC No.71 of 2012 (4) dt.13-02-2012 3/5 Section-391 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence in this regard. It was argued before this Court, in course of hearing of the appeal, that if it was established that Bibi Sakina @ Hasina was alive then not only his conviction on that account would stand vitiated but evidence of all her relations and other persons in this relation was open to suspect. This Court dismissed the appeal, inter alia, of this petitioner by detailed considered judgment dated 11.11.2004. The contention in respect of the petitioner, as noted at page-22 of the judgment of this Court and has considered the matter and held that there was no good ground for allowing application for additional evidence under Section-391 Cr.P.C. They considered the aspect of the facts as available and then dismissed the appellant’s appeal affirming the order of the Trial Court. Against the said judgment of this Court, the petitioner then filed an appeal before the Apex Court in S.L.A. (Cr.) 5226 of 2006 the same was dismissed in limine by order dated 09.10.2006 of the Apex Court. Thus, it appears that petitioner had raised these pleas before the Appellate Court in proceedings before this Court and had gone to the Apex Court unsuccessfully. Thereafter almost two years the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article-32 before the Apex Court, being Writ Petition (CRL.) No.50 of 2008, which was again dismissed on 08.09.2008 holding that the substantive petition under Article- Patna High Court CR. WJC No.71 of 2012 (4) dt.13-02-2012 4/5 32 of the Constitution in exercise of original jurisdiction of the Court is not well founded. Liberty was given to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and the dismissal of the writ petition would not come in way of the petitioner. As noticed above, this was the order of the Apex Court passed on 08.09.2008. This writ petition before this Court is now filed on 18.01.2012 after 3½ years with virtually the same prayer that was made before this Court while the appeal was being heard and with the same prayer that was made before the Apex Court in the writ petition as noticed above. We are of the considered view that once these issues were raised before and in the appellate proceedings, while the matter was being heard against the conviction and this Court refused to entertain the plea and upheld the conviction of the petitioner against which the petitioner approached the Apex Court first by way of an appeal against the appellate order and then by way of writ petition unsuccessfully, it is not open for this Court in the writ jurisdiction to reopen the criminal case which is virtually the relief sought for. A judgment delivered in a criminal trial cannot be reviewed, especially in the present case when the ground for review was taken at the appellate stage and before the Apex Court unsuccessfully on earlier occasions. It would be Patna High Court CR. WJC No.71 of 2012 (4) dt.13-02-2012 5/5 wholly inappropriate for this

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.