Dr. Rajendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11193 of 2011 (3) dt.06-09-2012 know of the real fact, he instantly filed a protest petition during investigation where the informant himself has stated that the petitioner was not involved in administering poison to his daughter. He has further submitted that there is no statement or word against the petitioner in whole of the case diary, rather the informant and other witnesses have specifically mentioned the petitioner was not in any way involved in the episode. It appears from the fard-beyan that the daughter of the informant, namely, Sunita Devi (victim) was married with Jhari Ram of village Jamua according to Hindu rites and at the time of marriage, he had given sufficient gift, like ornaments and utensils to his daughter but unfortunately his daughter was not blessed with any child which was the cause of discord of his daughter with son in-law, mother in-law, sister in-law and they used to torture her in various ways. On previous night at about 10:00 P.M. Tatan Ram of village Jamua along with Sanjay Ram of village Mahaul, brother in-law of the informant came to the house of the informant and informed him that his daughter was seriously ill. Upon hearing the aforesaid news, informant-O.P.No.2 had told them, his son in-law had come to his place at about 12 O’clock in the morning, the informant had asked about his daughter, his son in-law had replied that his daughter would come to see him after 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11193 of 2011 (3) dt.06-09-2012 five days but had not said anything about illness of his daughter. At about 11 O’ clock when the informant along with his brother Sukaru Ram, Dhaneshwar Ram and Bouku Ram had gone to the in-laws’ place of his daughter, they found his daughter was lying dead on the ground and from her mouth blood was coming out In the fard-beyan the informant has claimed that his daughter was killed by the accused persons by administering poison in which Dr. Rajendra Prasad Mandal, (Petitioner) was also instrumental. It appears from the record that the case was instituted on 24th February 2002 and a protest petition was filed by the informant on 5th May 2003(Annexure-2) where he made allegation against all the family members for causing death of his daughter but in Para- 2 and 3 the informant specifically stated that the doctor was not instrumental in causing death of his daughter. Police made investigation and submitted charge-sheet on 31st July 208 where the petitioner has not been shown in the category of accused, rather the Police has submitted charge-sheet against other accused persons. The court, while taking cognizance of the offence by the impugned order, has also issued notice to the petitioner as the court has specifically directed for issuance of notice to all the persons shown in Col. 11 and 12 of the charge- 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11193 of 2011 (3) dt.06-09-2012 sheet. Counsel for the petitioner submits that under confusion and mistake informant has given the name of petitioner as being village doctor was instrumental in administering poison to his daughter but subsequently when he came to know the real fact, he filed protest petition against all the accused, except the doctor and in categorical terms stated that petitioner was not involved in the incident. Counsel for the petitioner has produced the photo copy of the case diary which was handed over to the counsel for the O.P. for perusal of the same and after careful perusal he has apprised this Court that there is no averment in whole of the case diary against the petitioner. He further submits that on perusal of the case diary it will be apparent that there is no material against the petitioner so much so that different persons who were examined by the Police have specifically stated that the doctor was not involved in the incident. Counsel for the O.P. could not deny the fact that there is no material in the case diary as well as the statement made by the informant in protest petition where it has specifically been denied involvement of the petitioner. Of course the court at the stage of taking cognizance was required to see the materials for 5 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11193 of 2011 (3) dt.06-09-2012 the purpose of coming to a finding as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not, but the present case, is an exceptional case where the informant himself specifically stated at two places in protest petition the doctor was not involved in the killing of the deceased (daughter of informant) so much that no material has come against the petitioner during the investigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR1992 SC 604; 1992(1) SCC 335 has held that court may exercise inherent power either to prevent abuse of the process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and provided guidelines are as follows: Para 107. Mr. Parasaran, according to whom the allegations in the present case do not make out an offence, drew our attention to a recent judgment of this Court in State of U.P. V. V. R. K. Srivastava