V Sinate Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARIiAT_BILAS£yR Cr.M.P.No. 5~A?> /2011 Petitioners (In JaU) P.R. N,.......^OA fteMflted by Shri^A^.^ W.tol::.....».....S^.<^^"..< >+ (9 1. 2. 3. 4. Versus Resoondent Ramnath, S/o Bhagirathi, Aged about 27 years, Occupation - Service, • Dhansingh S/o Ramchand, Aged about 34 years, Occupatiori - Agriculturist, Mangal Ram S/o Sanyasi, Aged about 48 years, Occupation - Agriculturist, ®adgrg;/'o Songhar, Aged about- 45 years, Occupation - Agriculturist, All R/o - Kikirpal, P.S. - Distt. Dantewada-(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : District Magistrate, .E^t.pict; Dantewada-(C.G-) ..,-'" CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PET!_TIQN,U/S 482 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSeARH : BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri IVIanindra Mohan Shnv_ast&vaLJ. PETITIONERS RESPONDENT Cr.M.P. NO.S68/2011 Ramnath and others Versus State of Chhatti^arh pErrriQN UNDER SBCTION 432 OF THB CODE OF CRJMJNAL PROCEDURE Present: • Shri Shrawan Agrawal, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Goyernment Advocate for the Stete on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 7th of September, 2011) Heard on acimission. 2. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has toen filed by the petitionera / accused for quashing supptementary charge sheet which has been filed by the potice on 07/2^2011 (Annexure PQ). 3. Learned counset for the petffioner contended that In respeet of the ailegation ofcommissfon of offence under Sectfon 147, 148, 149, WS, 395 IPC and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act for murder of three persons, a report was lodged in the police station - Tongpat, Distrid - Dantewada under Crime No.20/09 on 30/10/09. Thereafter, the matter was investigated by the pofice during which, the statemerts of ttie prosecution witoiesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court on 21/3/2010. The case was committed for trial and after about 13 months, ths wife \. ^,^/ "^t.aSS^ ,< -'l of the deceased - Jaistngh namely Jamuna submitted application before the Superintendent of Police raising complaint that proper investigation has not been made nor statements of eye witnesses have been recorded by the police, as thsy have not even gone to village Kikirpal due to terror of naxalites. Leamed eounsel submits that on such improbable story, the application for permission to Biove supplementary challan was moved bythe prosecution before thetrial CourtaRd the trial Court wlthout serious consideration, as a matter of course, altowed the prosecution to file supplementary charge-sheet vlde its orderdated 7/2/2011. Thereafter, the poiice has recorded supptementary statemente and has impleaded another eight accused pereons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the exercise undertaken by the investigation is whoily unwarranted and is intended with malaflde, resulting in undue delay in which the appiicants are already facing trtal as accused and are in jall. He further submits that now, number of witnesses, whose supplementary statements have been recorded are coming out with improbable story that because of threat and terror, they did not give full and correct version of the incident of murder. Therefore, the submlssion of leamed counsel for the petitioners is that the supptementary charge sheet is a result of a malafide action of prosecution by abusing the process of law. Reliance has been made upon the decision ofthe Supreme Court in the case of State of Harvana and others v. Bhaian Lal and others. 1992 Supptementarv (11 Supreme Court Cases 335. •^l v •• 4. The first charge sheet which has been piaced on record shows that in the incident, which is alieged to have taken place on 29/10/09, three persons namely Jaisingh, Laxminath and Dileshwar Manjhiwere murdered. The petitioners are accused in the said case and the charge sheet has already been filed by the ' -?'1':.f'^£s'i ? JJ ...^' .^ )3 ^,. L' police against them. During the pendency of the case, on 1/12/2010, Smt. Jamuna Manjhi- wife of the deceased - Jaisingh submitted an appiicatton before the Superintendent of Police, South Bastar, Dantewada that the police has not carried out proper investigation nor has recorded statement of eye wltnesses. The residents ofVMage - Kikirpal.were eye witness to the incident butthe police, due to terrpr of naxalites, did not go to Village - Kikirpai and that statements have not been recorded. Thereater, an appiication under SeeUon 175 (8) CifsC for further investigaUon was filed before the court and upon consideration vide order dated 7/2/2011, the application was allowed. That order was not challenged by the petitioners. After carrying out further investigation, now supptementary charge sheet has been fiied in which the suppiemerrtary statements of Jamuna Manjhi, Uma Devi Manjhi, Laxman Nag, Kamla Bai, Kedamath and Kalmu Kosa have been recorded by the police. In most of the statements, it has been stated that because of the threat that if they speak truth, the entire family would be massacred, the witnesses did not give correct, true and full version of the incident of murder of which, they were witnesses. The petitioners have already been impticated as accused in the incident. Those who have now been made accused along w'rth supplementary charge sheet, elght ta number have not assailed the legal'rty and vaiidity of the supplementary charge sheet. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to record any defintte ffnding nor it would be proper to do so. The diary statements of tbe prosecution witnesses are to be used only for the purposes of contradiction and omissions. The truth or otherwise ofthecase ofthe prosecutlon and veracity ofthe prosecution evldence is to be examined by the trial Court after recording the statements of the prosecution witness. There cannot be any doubt that the poiice has power to make further investigation. Permission granted by the Court on 7/2/201 1 was not •'•^y^'^f-fT^wK/^J^ assailed by the petitioners at the time when the order was passed but when the supplementary charge-sheet is filed, the same is being assailed while seeking quashment ofthe supplementary charge sheet. '•*» 5. In view ofthe above discussions, 1 am not inclined to entertain this petition and the petition is therefore dismissed. ^^ ^ ^ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Deepti ~^-_