JUDGMENT

Date : 19-04-2022 Date of hearing : 30.03.2022 Date of verdict : 19.04.2022 VERDICT (CAV)

1. This petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is preferred by Shri Pikar Doyom for quashing the Criminal proceeding arising out of FIR of Itanagar P.S Case No. 259/2006, and Charge-Sheet No. 21/07, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 310/2006, under Section 341/326 IPC, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, Papum Pare District. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:-

“On 26.12.2006, one Shri Kommin Taso, lodged one FIR with Itanagar Police Station to the effect that one unidentified/unknown person has attack his brother Shri Menpak Taso on the short cut road, from F & G Sector to Chandaranagar, Itanagar, wherein his brother Shri Menpak Taso sustained injury on his person and he was admitted at R. K. Mission Hospital, Itanagar. On the basis of aforesaid FIR, the Officer-In-Charge, Itanagar Police Station, registered a case being Itanagar P.S Case No. 259/2006, under Section 341/326 IPC, and investigated the same. The investigation culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet against the petitioner to stand trial in the Court under Section 341/326 IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner and the victim Shri Menpak Taso, entered into a settlement deed and based upon the same, they approached this Court by filing one criminal petition, being Criminal Petition No. 10(AP)/2018, for quashing the criminal proceeding pending against the present petitioner. But, after hearing learned Advocates of both sides, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the aforesaid criminal petition on the ground that evidence of the victim has not yet been recorded and the victim in his statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly stated that though he does not know the accused yet he will be able to identify the accused person who attacked him and in view of the materials in the Case Diary, based upon which, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has framed charge against the petitioner, the prayer for quashing the proceeding of the G.R. Case No. 310/2006 was rejected. Thereafter, two more witnesses, i.e. the complainant and the victim, have been examined in the Trial Court in the year 2019 and the said two witnesses, in their statements, stated that they do not know the accused and they did not see the person who attacked the victim and on the basis of the said statement and also having been failed by the prosecution side to procure the attendance of other prosecution witnesses and having the case been pending for last 15 years, the petitioner approached this Court again for quashing the proceeding against him.”

3. I have heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

4. None appears for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, though notice upon them have been served by dasti mode.

5. Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no eye witnesses to the occurrence and none of the prosecution witnesses examined by the Investigation Officer have seen the occurrence and though the victim and the complainant have been examined by the prosecution side, yet they have also not implicated the accused with the offence and the remaining witnesses also could not be examined as they could not be found out as they were the labourers of the different parts of States of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. It is further submitted that though earlier criminal petition was rejected by this Court at that time the victim and the complainant have been not examined by the prosecution side and even after the examination of the complainant and victim, it has been found that they have not implicated the accused and that the accused is a daily wage earner and for last 15 years he has been appearing before the Court regularly and as such his right to spee