The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 733 of 2023 Sujeet Kumar @ Sujit Kumar, son of Mahesh Kumar Aman, resident of Jai Prakash Uddan, PO & PS: Adityapur, District: Seraikella-Kharsawan (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sudip Chaudhary, son of Sri Ramkrishna Choudhary, resident of Bhagwati Enclave, Adityapur, PO: Adityapur, PS: Adityapur, District: Seraikella- Kharsawan (Jharkhand) … ... Opposite Parties CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
:- Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, No.4, Advocate :- Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, APP 11/05.09.2024: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned ... counsel for the State. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.05.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seriakella in Adityapur PS Case No. 256 of 2017, corresponding to ST No. 02 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the petition dated 11.04.2019 filed by the petitioner under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge from the offences alleged under sections 364/ 302 of the Indian Penal Code (as cognizance of the offences was taken) has been rejected, the case is now pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella. The prosecution case, in brief, based on the written report of the informant, namely, Sudip Chaudhary lodged on 18.09.2017 before the officer-in-charge of Adityapur police station alleging inter alia is that the informant's brother Sunil Kumar Chaudhary is missing from 09.09.2017 evening and his three mobiles are switched off. After search and not returning him in house, a sanha was lodged on 14.09.2017 in Adityapur police station. His motorcycle was also missing. He has good friendship with the petitioner and there was money exchange with the petitioner. He suspected that he was abducted or any mishappening was done with him for the reason of money exchange with the petitioner or any other person. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, the case was registered as Adityapur PS Case No. 256 of 2017 dated 18.09.2017 under section 364 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. -2- The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the FIR wherein written report has been indicated and has read out from the written report. The learned counsel has submitted that in the written report only reference is that some money exchange was done between the petitioner and the deceased and nothing else and the matter is based on suspicion against the petitioner or any other person. The learned counsel has further submitted that merely on suspicion allegations have been raised against this petitioner. The learned counsel has further submitted that there is no documentary evidence whatsoever regarding the loan matter and that there is no date and time as to when alleged loan either given or taken between the the petitioner and the deceased. The learned counsel has further submitted that the incident took place on 09.09.2017 and prior to lodging of the FIR i.e. on 18.09.2017, a sanha was lodged on 14.09.2017. The learned counsel has further submitted that in the sanha, no suspicion has been raised against any person and even this petitioner has not been made a suspect in the sanha but after some afterthought and concoction, the FIR has been lodged with the written report mentioning that this petitioner is one of the suspects. Therefore, the learned counsel has submitted that on the variation of the sanha and the FIR also, the allegations cannot be sustained. The learned counsel has further submitted that there is no inimical terms between the petitioner and the deceased. The learned counsel has further submitted that the allegation is based on suspicion and there is no evidence to sustain the loan matter or money matter. The learned counsel has further submitted that there is no eye-witness to the incident. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses are basically hearsay and the prosecution witnesses have also expressed suspicion. Therefore, based on these grounds, his prayer, as sought for, may be allowed. The learned counsel for the State has, on the other hand, opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel has referred to the confession of one Rakesh Kumar and has submitted that from the confession of the said Rakesh Kumar, it is fully apparent that as to how the deceased along with this petitioner and his driver reached the house of the petitioner and that one day the deceased was persuaded to come to the house of the petitioner during the day time and after drinking the deceased was eliminated and thereafter, how the dead body was put in a Indica car and the dead body was brought somewhere near the road leading to Dasam Falls. The learned counsel has further submitted that this confession has also been supported by the confession of the petitioner himself also. That apart, the learned counsel has referred to paragraph no.46 of the case diary wherein the evidence of one Amit Kumar Choudhary was taken -3- at the time of investigation where he has deposed about how he had conversed with the deceased Sunil Kumar Choudhary on the date of occurrence itself and around approximate time when the incident was going to occur. The learned counsel has submitted that the deceased was in the company of the petitioner on the date of occurrence and approximately near the time when the death was taken place. The learned counsel has further referred to paragraph no.54 of the case diary and has pointed out that in this paragraph it is indicated that CDRs were also matching with the petitioner as well as the deceased. The learned counsel has further submitted that there are grounds enough for inferring that the incident had taken place on that day. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was in communication with the deceased and his phone was switched off after certain time, which raises suspicion. The learned counsel has further submitted that it has come in the evidence of other prosecution witnesses that the deceased and the petitioner were on relationship and only money was taken and given between them and that the deceased had invested or given money to the petitioner and on asking for its return, it put the petitioner in too much trouble and harassment and, therefore, the motive was there for committing murder of the deceased. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner, as sought for, may not be allowed. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, noted the submissions made and also gone through the statements of the witnesses in the paragraphs referred to in the case diary, I am not inclined to grant the prayer made by the petitioner. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No. 733 of 2023 is dismissed. S.B. (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)