SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Jhk) 896

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
H.C. MISHRA, J.
Rajendra Prasad ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. Opposite Party
Cr. Revision No.128 of 2002
Decided on : 2.7.2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ramawatar Sharma, Advocate Mr. B.K. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Prasad, A. P.P.

The court can discharge a petitioner if it is found that putting the petitioner to trial would serve no useful purpose, especially when all other co-accused persons have been acquitted due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses.

Headnote:

Discharge - Criminal Law - The court discharged the petitioner based on the finding that all the other co-accused persons had been acquitted after the trial due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses, and therefore, putting the petitioner to trial would serve no useful purpose.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for discharge in a case related to the murder of one Kapildeo Prasad. The petitioner claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that all the other accused persons had been acquitted due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses, and therefore, it would serve no useful purpose to put the petitioner to trial.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be discharged from the case, considering the acquittal of all other co-accused persons due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to discharge the petitioner based on the fact that all the other co-accused persons had been acquitted after the trial due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses, and putting the petitioner to trial would serve no useful purpose.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was discharged in exercise of the inherent power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

Judgment

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in S.T. No.14 of 2001, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge, has been rejected by the Court below.

3. It appears that Marafari P.S. Case No.70 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. No.753 of 1997 was instituted for the offence under Sections 147/148/149/323/302 of the I.P.C. and 27(3)/35 of the Arms Act which related to the murder of one Kapildeo Prasad, who was the brother of the informant Awadesh Kumar.

4. In the said case, in all, 12 persons were made accused. From the FIR, it is apparent that one Birendra Manjhi and one Raja Singh were the main accused persons, against whom there was direct allegation of assault and it was alleged that the accused Raja Singh had fired pistol upon the deceased. In the said case, one Rajendra Paswan was also made accused. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is not that Rajendra Paswan, rather the petitioner is Rajendra Prasad and he has falsely been implicated in this case in place of Rajendra Paswan. The petitioner accordingly, filed an application for discharge which was rejected by the impugned order dated 15.12.2001 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro stating that there was material against the petitioner also in the case diary.

5. It appears that the other 11 co-accused persons, including Birendra Manjhi and Raja Singh, against whom there was direct allegation to have made assault and to have committed the murder, had faced the trial in Sessions Trial No. 248 of 1998. The record of Session Trial No.248 of 1998 was called for, which shows that in spite of all possible efforts taken by the Court, no prosecution witness was examined except the doctor, and accordingly, by Judgment dated 14.2.2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Bokaro, all the accused persons were acquitted of the charges.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, the petitioner is not Rajendra Paswan, who had been made accused in this case, rather the petitioner is Rajendra Prasad. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer,

8. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the main accused persons, against whom the allegations were there and all the other accused persons named in the F.I.R., had faced the trial and all of them have been acquitted of the charges by Judgment dated 14.2.2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, as none of the prosecution witnesses turned up to support the prosecution case. In that view of the matter, I am of considered view that no useful purpose is going to be served even if, it is found that this petitioner was the actual person who was named in the F.I.R., thus, putting the petitioner to trial, which shall, for all the practical purposes, be of academic value only. In view of the fact that all the other co-accused persons have been acquitted after the trial, as no witness turned up for their examination during the trial, it is a fit case to discharge the petitioner as well.

9. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned order dated 15.12.2001 passed in S.T. No.14 of 2001, by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, is hereby set-aside. In exercise of the inherent power u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C., to secure the ends of justice,the petitioner is hereby, discharged. Let the lower court records, called for in this case, be sent back forthwith. This application is accordingly, allowed.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top