IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15961 of 2007 1. Rajendra Prasad Singh, S/o. Muni Singh, r/o. Village- Fuli, P.S. Kudra, District- Kaimur. 2. Ramashish Singh, S/o. Mukhram Singh, r/o. Village- Khanethi, P.S. Kudara, District- Kaimur. 3. Dayanand Upadhyaya, S/o. Triveni Upadhyay, r/o. Village- Bauna, P.S. Kudara, District- Kaimur. Versus STATE OF BIHAR Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, Counsel for the State: Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, Addl.P.P. ----------- 09. 26.03.2010 This application is directed against the order dated 12.12.2005 of the learned S.D.J.M., Sasaram passed in G.R. Case No.211 of 1998, T.R. No.1720 of 2006, whereby cognizance of offence under Sections 302, 201 & 120B/34 of the I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioners and three others. As to the antecedents of the case it was that U.D. Case No.3 of 1991 dated 15.09.1991 was lodged by a Chaukidar Lakhan Ram, who stated that while he was on round in course of duty he found that in the flank of the road one dead body was lying and going close to the dead body he found that a vile of poison was lying there and there was one stitch wound near his right elbow and a suicidal note was also lying there in which it was written that the deceased had voluntarily ended his life. Thus on the - 2 - statement of the Chaukidar the U.D. Case was lodged. Post mortem was conducted on the dead body. Thereafter nothing happened for complete seven years and it was on 10.02.1998 when informant Harishankar Pandey, S.I. of Nauhatta P.S. recorded his statement and on the basis of the same Nauhatta P.S. Case No.8 of 1998 under Sections 302, 201 & 120B/34 of the I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioners and three others. Informant stated in his F.I.R.(relating to the said U.D. Case No.3 of 1991) that the dead body of unknown person was found and a vile of poison as well as suicide note was also found. The informant further stated that in course of the investigation in the matter it was found that the deceased has some illicit relation with a girl Sweta Kumari who was a student in Sasaram Bal Vikash Vidyalay, where the deceased was also working as a teacher in the school. The informant suspected that due to this illicit relationship the petitioners and other accused instigated accused Pankaj@ Raghbendra Singh and his father Shankar Dayal Singh against the deceased and they got the deceased finished under a conspiracy. Thus it was the very suspicion - 3 - of the informant and on that basis the investigation proceeded into the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that paragraph-7 of the case-diary contains the statement of Choukidar Lakhan Ram, he has repeated his statement given under the U.D. Case. Para-14 contains statement of Kamla Dubey wife of Arun Kumar Dubey, who had stated that the deceased had gone out and he had sent message through a boy that he would go to Hospital. Kamla Dubey has not named any accused nor has she expressed any suspicion against anyone. Para-50 contains the statement of Vinay Kumar Dubey, the full brother of the deceased and it is pointed out that this witness is also a teacher in the same school and he does not name any of the accused in his statement. Para-16 of the case-diary contains the statement of Uma Shankar Tiwary, the Bahnoi of the deceased who does not name any of the accused but he stated about hearsay knowledge that the deceased was having some love-affairs with a girl student of the same school in which he was teaching. It is further pointed out that statements of some officials have been recorded but none has stated anything specific against any of the accused - 4 - to indicate their complicity in the commission of the murder or in conspiracy in the commission of the murder. Learned Addl.P.P. does not point out any other material against the petitioner excepting paragraph-174 which is the supervision note of the Dy.S.P. It is mentioned in the very supervision note that the case was also supervised by one Dy.S.P. who did not find any case against any of the accused. The S.P. who supervised the case as under para-164 does not mention any specific statement of any witness or any other material indicating the complicity of any other accused in the conspiracy for the offence but he has mentioned the hearsay knowledge that the deceased was having illicit relationship with Sweta Kumari a girl student of the school and that due to this some teachers of the school instigated the brother of the girl and thus they got the deceased finished. Learned counsel submits that whatever is stated in paragraph-174 is not a sort of definite or concrete material but suspicion of the supervising authority on the basis of his hearsay knowledge. The learned Addl. P.P. submits that in paragraph-177 of the case-diary the S.P. has also repeated the same as under Para-174 of the case- - 5 - dairy. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to para-38 of the case-diary and points out that in post mortem report any ante mortem injury was not found on the dead body. It is submitted that the viscera was preserved but police did not obtain any viscera report. Learned counsel also submits that the deceased was found dead and a vile of poison was also lying there, besides this a suicide note was also found which mentioned that he had committed suicide at his own. Learned counsel submits that cognizance of offence was taken on the basis of the charge sheet No.61 of 2005 dated 30.11.2005. It is pointed out that in column-16 of the charge sheet there is space for writing the brief facts of the case. It is further pointed out that in this column no specific material has been mentioned to indicate the complicity of the petitioners in the offence as alleged. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have been charge sheeted and cognizance of the offence has been taken against them but there is no cogent material against them to indicate their complicity. In view of the discussions made above, I find that there was no ground for submission of charge sheet against - 6 - the petitioners. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified for taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. Therefore, the order dated 12.12.2005 taking cognizance is set aside and the prosecution against petitioners is quashed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)