IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2933 of 2007 LAXMI RAI & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioners : M/s Amarendra Narayan Rai, Rajeev Lochan and Manish Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate O R D E R The petitioners through this application have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 30.12.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 631 of 2005 by Sri Md. Islam, the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Samastipur, whereby he has been pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioners for discharging them from the charges of sections 302, 201/34 I.P.C. It appears that one Ramashish Paswan, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed Complaint Case No. 968 of 1998 inter alia alleging that his son, Manoj Kumar Paswan, aged about 20 years, who runs a cycle repairing shop in village Dharampur was occasionally engaged by petitioner nos. 1 and 2 to run errands gratis for them and in that connection on 29.8.1998, they with the permission of the complainant and an assurance to return by evening, took Manoj to Pusa where petitioner no. 2 had an appointment with the doctor. It is said that when Manoj did not return till evening, the complainant thought that all of them may perhaps have gone to petitioner no. 2’s sasural. It is further alleged that on the following morning at about 9 A.M. petitioner no. 1 came to the complainant’s house and told him that he and his daughter had returned in the evening itself and that his son – in - 2 - – law had just informed him over telephone that Manoj’s dead body was detected lying by the river side whereupon the complainant accompanied by petitioner no. 1 and some co-villagers went to the spot and found that petitioner no. 1’s son-in-law and samdhi with the help of co-villagers were trying to bury Manoj’s dead body. It is said that warnings and threats were given to the complainant not to lodge any case or else his entire family would be killed. Nevertheless, the complainant with some co-villagers went to petitioner no. 1’s house on 11.10.1998 and accused him of killing his son whereupon they were abused. It further appears that the complaint was forwarded to the concerned Police Station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof Samastipur (Harijan) P.S. Case No. 37 of 1998 came to be registered under sections 302, 201/34 I.P.C. and 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, after due investigation the police submitted a final form as a mistake of fact. Accordingly, the protest petition filed by the complainant in the meanwhile proceeded as a complaint case wherein the names of the son – in – law and samdhi of petitioner no. 1 had been added and after due enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken. Assailing the impugned order it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it would be apparent from a reading of the complaint petition and the protest petition that the allegations were totally concocted and due to village politics, it was after more than - 3 - one month that the complaint had been filed. It was also submitted that it would be apparent from perusal of the case diary that the witnesses named in the complaint petition had not supported the case as alleged in the complaint petition in their statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that it would be clear from perusal of the case diary that Manoj had died due to drowning in the river and even the witnesses examined at the enquiry had not supported the prosecution case to the hilt. It was on these grounds that a discharge was prayed for before the Sessions Court. The scope of sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. was considered and laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh (AIR 1977 SC 2018) and it still holds the field. It was held therein that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the 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. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 or 228 Cr.P.C. and where there was strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It appears from perusal of the impugned order of the - 4 - Sessions Court that sufficient grounds have been stated for proceeding with the case and frame charges against the accused. He has rightly ignored the case diary as the case was proceeding on the basis of the protest – cum – complaint petition. All the witnesses examined at the enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. have named the accused persons and have supported the complainant’s case of petitioner Lakshmi Rai taking the deceased to Pusa and the other accused persons by the riverside preventing the family members of the deceased from taking away the dead body with them. Thanedar Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2002(1) East Cr.C.325 (S.C.) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no application in the instant case. I find no cause to interfere with the impugned order which is upheld. Accordingly there is no merit in this application which is dismissed. The Patna High Court The 18th July, 2008 Sanjay Prasad/A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)