The main legal point established in the judgment is the trial court's power to ensure complete justice by directing the production of evidence mentioned in the charge-sheet and the invocation of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the impugned order and quash the discharge of the accused.

JUDGMENT

Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. In the affidavit of service filed on 02.09.2019 by the petitioner, it has been stated that the respondent No. 6 had died on 24.12.2017. Accordingly, the name of T. Tayeng, the deceased respondent No. 6 is struck off.None appears on call for respondent No. 5, and 8.

3. This application under Sections 397 and 401, read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside and quashing of the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Sessions Case No. 27/2017(YPA), corresponding to Sagalee P. S Case No. 4/2016 under Sections 305/34 I.P.C., thereby discharging the accused, namely, Shri Kara Abo Taga (respondent No. 7) and Shri Gollo Mangha (respondent No. 8).

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has extensively referred to the documents annexed to this application and materialsavailable in the LCR called for from the learned trial Court. It is submitted that the petitioner s minor daughter had committed suicide upon being physically and mentally harassed by the respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged against the said 2(two) respondents. After investigation, the I.O. had filed charge sheet against the respondent Nos. 7 and 8. It is submitted that as per column 10 of the charge-sheet, the I.O. had seized, amongst others, a personal diary of the deceased, 3 (three) mobile handsets and 1 (one) ligature material (i.e. a silk scarf). A brief story of the case was appended to the charge sheet, referring to the same, it is submitted that the I.O. had mentioned therein that on requisition, the call detail report (CDR for short) of the mobile numbers of the accused as well as the deceased victim for the period from 01.12.2015 to 02.03.2016 was received and that as per the CDR analysis, the accused persons were in frequent contact with the deceased victim and the last call was traced on 02.03.2016 at 8:38:40 hours. After taking custody of the dead body, an inquest was made and the body was then dispatched for post mortem examination. It is submitted that although the post mortem report is available in the LCR, but there is no mention of it in the charge-sheet submitted by the I.O. under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

5. It is submitted that notwithstanding reference to the statements of various witnesses recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia had recorded in the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 as follows:

"The Investigating Officer of the case has not annexed the CDR of the mobile phones that were seized. Nor the contents of any SMS have been furnished. In the charge-sheet also the IO has not mentioned about any incriminating evidence or writing left by the deceased against any of the accused persons. The personal Diary of the deceased is also not annexed. The evidence adduced by the IO of the case is not sufficient for framing charge against any of the accused persons. Therefore, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the prosecution and the defence in this behalf with the citations so placed, this Court considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons, therefore the accused persons Kara Abo Taga and Gollo Mangha are hereby discharged U/S 227 Cr.P.C."

6. Accordingly, it is submitted that merely because the I.O. of the case did not annex the incriminating materials seized in course of investigation, the learned trial Court, instead of directing the I.O./Officer-in-Charge of Sagalee P.S. to produce the evidence mentioned in the charge- sheet, deemed it fit to hold that there was no sufficient materials for proceeding against the accused persons and therefore, both the acc