Annu Devi vs State of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Pat) 60

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Pat) 60

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Cr.WJC Nos. 71 of 2023 with 2228 of 2024
(1.2.2024)
Annu Devi & Anr. (in 71, 2228) ... Petitioners
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
(in both)

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners: M/s Amit Narayan, Abhigyan Kumar, Ritika Roy, Sneha Kumari (in 71, 2228).
For the Respondents: M/s P.K. Shahi, AG, P.N. Sharma, AC to AG (in 71).
For the R/No. 9 : M/s Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Adv., Praijat Saurav (in 2228).
For the R/No. 10 : M/s Basant Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Adv., Shashi Bhushan Kumar (in 2228).
For the State : Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP (in 2228).

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 24 and 25 – Appointment of new Special Public Prosecutor as suggested by Advocate General as per choice of State Government – State would like to proceed with trial maintaining all fairness and transparency and any iota of suspicion or doubt of informant need be removed – State Government shall notify name of Special Public Prosecutor as suggested by Advocate General within two weeks. (Paras 19 and 21)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 407 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34, 341/34, 120B, 147, 148, 379/34 and 353/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Petition seeking transfer of Sessions Trial – It is nowhere case of petitioners that Trial Court was acting with bias or partiality – Whole grievance of petitioners centers around conduct of trial in a lackadaisical manner by Additional Public Prosecutor – Grievance is that some of witnesses who were not supporting prosecution case should have been declared hostile/re-examined which was not done – At this stage, petitioners cannot have reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done to them – In order to ensure fair trial, this Court has already directed State Government to notify appointment of Special Public Prosecutor as suggested by Advocate General – State Government has been directed to provide all logistic support to Special Public Prosecutor – Petitioners have already engaged their own Lawyer to assist prosecution – No plausible reason to direct transfer of trial from criminal court i.e. M.P./M.L.A. Court, Saran, Chapra to a criminal court i.e. M.P./M.L.A. Court at Patna – It will be open to petitioners to move this Court afresh if at any stage, they get a reasonable apprehension that miscarriage of justice is likely to be done and petitioners are not likely to get justice. (Paras 51, 60, 61 and 62)

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—The criminal writ application and criminal miscellaneous case being connected with each other between the same parties were tagged by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed in Cr.WJC No. 71 of 2023 and have been heard. By this common judgment both the applications are being disposed of.

Cr.WJC No. 71 of 2023

2. The petitioner no.1 in the present writ application is the wife of the deceased Munna Singh who was engaged as bodyguard of petitioner no.2 (in short P-2). Late Munna Singh was allegedly shot dead for which a case being Masrakh P.S. Case No. 224 of 2011 dated 17.12.2011 under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34, 341/34, 120B, 147, 148, 379/34, 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered. Respondent nos. 9 to 11 are the accused of the said case.

3. It is the case of the petitioners in the writ application that during investigation three persons, namely, Upendra Singh (PW 2), Sanjay Kumar (PW 5) and Maheshwar Singh (PW 1) recorded their statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CrPC). A copy of the statements have been enclosed as Annexure ‘2’. The accused persons were charge-sheeted vide Charge-sheet No. 196 of 2012 dated 26.08.2012 and order taking cognizance was passed on 03.02.2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chapra. Thereafter, it took three years in committing the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Saran. From 19.02.2015 till 07.12.2021 i.e. after a period of more than six and half years, the charges were framed against respondent nos. 9 to 11. On 07.12.2021, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-MP/MLA Special Judge, Saran at Chapra framed charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case is pending trial.

4. It is stated that the accused persons are highly influential persons. One of the accused (R-9) is a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly of Bihar from Baniapur constituency and another accused namely, Dinanath Singh (R-11) is influential person whereas the third accused, respondent no.10 is the son of respondent no. 11.

5. It is further stated that respondent no.11 has been convicted recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in connection with Masrakh P.S. Case No. 62 of 1995. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harendra Rai vs. State of Bihar and Others decided on 18.08.2023 reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1023. In the said case, the brother of respondent nos. 9 and 11 of this case, who was a political leader and sitting Member of Parliament, at the relevant time was an accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that he had influenced and won over almost all the witnesses of fact mentioned in the charge-sheet, the relevant formal witnesses including the Investigating Officer were not produced in the trial by the prosecution and the Public Prosecutor prosecuting the case was supporting the defence.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further noticed that the said accused got the Court witness, namely, Lalmuni Devi mother of deceased Rajendra Rai abducted 10 days before the date fixed for recording her statement. This led to filing of Habeas Corpus petitioner before the High Court, a report was submitted by the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge and there were comments upon the judgment of acquittal by the learned trial court.

7. It is submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harendra Rai is being placed before this Court to demonstrate that how the accused persons are influential and can go to any extent to ensure that the trial results in their acquittal.

8. Learned counsel has further submitted that in this case PW-1 Maheshwar Singh was examined on five dates and his evidence has been recorded in 112 paragraphs. He was an eye witness to the occurrence and a victim of the case. He had given a separate written