IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1174 of 2007 (Against the order dated 6.06.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.22/2007) ================================================== Ram Ekbal Singh, son of Late Tarni Singh, resident of village- Sabaura, P.S.-Barauni, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Balmiki Singh, son of Ram Khelawan Singh, resident of village-Sabaura, P.S.-Barauni, District- Begusarai. .... .... Opposite Parties ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 6.06.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II in S.T.No.22/07 by which the accused opposite party no.2 has been discharged from the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the I.P.C. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6.12.2003 Anjani Kumar Singh (deceased), son of the informant was working as a contractor in the I.O.C. Refinery. There has been dispute six months ago with regard to the tender with Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1174 of 2007 dt.15-09-2011 2 the owner of Saga Enterprises and its partner Ram Bilash Singh @ Doctor. The tender was given to the deceased. Due to this, Ram Bilash and Shamshul, owner of Saga Enterprises were threatening the deceased and were demanding Rs.5,00,000/- failing which he would be killed. The deceased used to convey this matter to the father (informant) and other family members. On 9.12.2003 at about 8.30 A.M. the deceased was killed and his dead body was thrown at Gate No.1 of the I.O.C. It was suspected by the informant that Samshul and Ram Bilash Singh with the help of other co-accused have killed his son Anjani Kumar Singh. On the fardbeyan of the informant, Barauni (Refinery) P.S.Case No.425/03 was instituted against both the accused. After investigation, the case was found true against the accused Ram Bilash Singh @ Doctor, Samshul and Non-F.I.R. accused Balmiki Singh (opposite party no.2) and the charge-sheet was submitted showing Ram Bilash Singh and Balmiki Singh absconding and investigation against the accused Samshul was kept pending. The cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1174 of 2007 dt.15-09-2011 3 Arms Act. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. A petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the accused Ram Bilash Singh @ Doctor on 22.03.2007, which was rejected by the impugned order, whereas, a petition filed on behalf of the accused Balmiki Singh, opposite party no.2 under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge on 22.05.2007 has been allowed and it has been held that there is insufficient evidence for framing of charge against Balmiki Singh and the petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the Balmiki Singh has been allowed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from paragraph nos. 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 63 and 88 of the case diary, it appears that suspicion has been raised against the accused Balmiki Singh about his involvement in the occurrence. He has further submitted that at the beginning of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. At the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion against the accused giving rise to presumption of his guilt, then it is Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1174 of 2007 dt.15-09-2011 4 not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In support of his contention, he has referred to a decision in the case of Rana Ramdeo Singh & Ors. Versus The State of Bihar & anr. reported in 2000(4) PLJR 405. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that so far Balmiki Singh is concerned; none of the witnesses have expressed any suspicion regarding his involvement in the alleged occurrence. The witnesses have categorically stated that Balmiki Singh is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police. After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the carbon copy of the case diary, it appears that strong suspicion has been expressed by the witnesses against the accused Balmiki Singh as mentioned in paragraph nos. 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 63 and 88 of the case diary and the charge-sheet has been submitted against this accused also showing him absconder as mentioned in paragraph no.102 of the case diary. It is settled principle of law that at the time of considering petition under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., the court is not required to Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1174 of 2007 dt.15-09-2011 5 meticulously judge the truth, veracity and effect of evidence nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused at the initial stage of trial. At this stage, even if there is a strong suspicion against the accused which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it will not be open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At this stage, it is not for the court to meticulously examine what evidence the prosecution proposes to adduce or not, defence may be taken during the trial. The court has only to find out whether any prima facie case is made out against the accused or not so that the necessary charge against him can be framed. Reference may be made to the decision in the case of State of Bihar Versus Ramesh Singh reported in AIR 1977 SC 2018, which has been relied upon in the decision reported in 2000(4) PLJR 405 (Supra). Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order so far it relates to the accused opposite party no.2 is concerned, is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. The matter is remanded to Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1174 of 2007 dt.15-09-2011 6 the learned trial court to proceed in accordance with law. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 15th September, 2011 NAFR/V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)