The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.Revision No.1003 of 2012 Moti @ Mohammad Shamim-Vs.-The State of Jharkhand With Cr.Revision No.1038 of 2012 Masood Alam Khan @ Maqsood Alam-Vs.-The State of Jharkhand CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -------- For the Petitioners For the Informant For the State -------- : : : ------
Legal Reasoning
Mr.Sarju Prasad, Advocate. Mr.Pandey Ashok Nath Roy, Advocate. Mr.K.S.Nanda, Advocate. A.P.P. / 28.06.2013 Both these revision applications arise out of the same impugned order
Decision
and as such, they are being disposed of together by this common order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 21.9.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in S.T No. 389 of 2011 arising out of Sadar P.S Case No. 697 of 2010 corresponding to G.R No. 3127 of 2010, as also Sadar P.S Case No. 700 of 2010, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., has been rejected by the Court below. The case relates to double murder, for which, two separate F.I.Rs were lodged initially, but both of them were later amalgamated. Sadar P.S Case No. 697 of 2010 was instituted by one Bhaiya Sandeep Kumar, who is the father of the deceased Bhaiya Harshdeep, aged about 15 years. It is stated in the FIR that Bhaiya Harshdeep was ready to go to his school, when his friends namely, Md. Rashid and Md. Ashar Atib came there and they went to school together, but the deceased did not return back and subsequently, when the informant went to the house of Md. Rashid in search of his son, he was not given correct picture about the whereabouts of his son. One uncle of Md. Rashid, who was present there, prevented him from making any disclosure about his son. The informant, however, was only informed about the name of one Rakesh Prasad Dubey. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased Bhaiya Harshdeep was recovered and the case was instituted against Md. Rashid and Rakesh Prasad Dubey, as also other unknown persons. Subsequently, of the dead body of Md. Ashar Atib was also recovered, who had also accompanied the deceased, and another case was lodged by the maternal uncle of the said deceased, which is Sadar P.S Case No. 700 of 2010, in which also, Md. Rashid and Rakesh Prasad Dubey were made accused along-with other unknown persons. Subsequently, both the cases were amalgamated and common investigation was carried out. -2- It appears from the impugned order that Md. Rashid and Rakesh Prasad Dubey were declared to be juvenile and their case was sent before the Juvenile Justice Board for enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are not named in the FIR and there is no cogent evidence against the petitioners in the entire case diary. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner Md. Masood Alam Khan @ Maqsood Alam is the father of Md. Rashid and the petitioner Moti @ Mohammad Shamim is their next door neighbor, who has been described in the FIR, as one of the relatives of the Md. Rashid, as is mentioned in the case diary as also in the impugned order. It may be stated that after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against these petitioners also and cognizance was taken against them and the case was committed to the Court of Session, where the petitioners filed their application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., which has been rejected by the Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that only material against Md. Masood Alam Khan @ Maqsood Alam in the entire case diary is that the mobile phone of the deceased was produced by him before the police after ten days of the recovery of dead body of the deceased and it has also been pointed out that the petitioner, Moti @ Mohammad Shamim had talks with Md. Rashid on the same mobile phone. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the only on the basis of these materials in the case diary, the petitioners have been made accused in the case, which are absolutely insufficient to secure their conviction in the trial, and accordingly, it is a fit case for discharge. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer for discharge and have submitted that at this stage, there are sufficient materials to show the circumstantial evidence against the petitioners as well. It has been pointed out from the case diary that when the father of the deceased Bhaiya Harshdeep had gone to the house of the petitioner along-with the witnesses in search of his son, it was the petitioner, Moti @ Mohammad Shamim who is the next door neighbor of the said accused, came out of the house and he prevented Md. Rashid from making any disclosure about the whereabouts of the deceased and he was instrumental in getting Md. Rashid to slip away from the house. Learned counsel has also pointed out from the case diary, as also it is apparent from the impugned order also, that the mobile phone of the deceased (which actually belonged to the mother of the deceased), was found to be taken away by Md. Rashid after the murder and that was used by Md. Rashid. The said mobile phone was produced by the petitioner, Md. Masood Alam Khan @ Maqsood Alam before the police after ten days of the occurrence, though the informant and the family members of the deceased had visited the house of Md. Masood Alam Khan @ Maqsood Alam -3- soon after the occurrence, and had met him, but he had not disclosed anything about the said mobile to them. There is also evidence in the case diary to show that there was talk between the petitioner Md. Moti @ Mohammad Shamim with Md. Rashid on the same mobile after the murder. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsels that the deaths of both the deceased boys were found to be caused by poisoning and accordingly, there are sufficient materials against the petitioners also in the case diary, showing the circumstances of involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence and accordingly, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioners were not at all involved in the murder of two boys. Learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the informant have, accordingly, opposed the prayer for discharge. After having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that though the petitioners are not named in the FIR, but there are sufficient materials against them in the case diary which have been discussed in the impugned order by the Court below, showing their prima facie involvement in the occurrence of the murder of two teenaged boys. Though there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, but from the materials against the petitioners, as discussed above, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioners are absolutely innocent and the materials found against them during investigation are not sufficient to put both these petitioners on trial. Hence, I do not find any illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned order, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in these applications and the same are, hereby, dismissed. BS/ ( H. C. Mishra, J.)