DILIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS
LAWS(JHAR)-2018-4-122
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on April 03,2018

DILIP KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Jharkhand And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHIV KUMAR VS. HUKAM CHAND [REFERRED TO]
PRITISH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
N NATARAJAN VS. B K SUBBA RAO [REFERRED TO]
IQBAL SINGH MARWAH VS. MEENAKSHI MARWAH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. - (1.)Heard the parties.
(2.)The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ramgarh in S.T. Case No.279 of 2014 whereby and whereunder, his petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned court below.
(3.)The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is not a party to the Sessions Trial No.279 of 2014. Sessions Trial No.279 of 2014 arose out of complaint case No.19 of 2007. The appellant is neither the complainant of the said complaint case nor has been cited as a witness in that complaint. The name of the appellant does not appear in the complaint of complaint case no.19 of 2007. A petition under Section 231 Cr.P.C. was filed in Session Trial No.279 of 2014 on behalf of the prosecution with a prayer for issue of summon to Dr. A.N. Minj, Sr. M.O. of C.W.S. Hospital, N.T.S. Barkakana for his evidence and production of original injury reports as to the injury sustained by Satyadeo Ram Dangi and his mother namely, Bindi Devi in that case. The respondent no.2 who is an accused in Sessions Trial No.279 of 2014 filed a counter to the said petition filed under Section 231 Cr.P.C. on behalf of prosecution on 18.03.2015. The grievance of the appellant herein is that in the said counter the respondent no.2 of this appeal has made false averments. The averments made in the counter and how they are false as asserted by the appellant herein , in the learned court below is as under:-
(i) In paragraph no.4 it was averred by the respondent no.2 "on perusal of the complaint petition, it would be apparent that no injury report of any injured was filed in the complaint petition". In respect of this averment made in the counter of the accused-respondent no. 2 herein, the grievance of the appellant is that the same is a fact because it has been mentioned in sub-paragraph of paragraph no.14 of the complaint that "a photocopy of the injury report is attached herewith".

(ii) The second grievance of the appellant is that in the second sentence of paragraph no.4 of the said counter, it has been mentioned that "Matter of fact is that the learned lower court has already issued summon to Dr. A.N. Minz to produce the injury report" and the grievance of the appellant is that this is ipso-facto false as the case record does show that summon has been issued to Dr. A.N. Minz.

(iii) The third grievance of the appellant is that in paragraph no.4, it has also been averred that "The complainant's father was an employee of the said hospital and in collusion with him the complainant manufactured fake and fabricated injury reports". The grievance of the appellant in respect of these averments is that the father of the complainant was an employee of the said hospital and the said injury reports have already been sent by the I.O. along with the case diary in S.T. Case No.132 of 2007 and in the instant case also the said injury reports have been directed to be called for vide the order of the Sessions Judge-Hazaribag in criminal revision no.127 of 2013 vide order dated 30.08.2013.

(iv) The fourth grievance of the appellant is that in paragraph no.5 of the said counter, it has been averred by the respondent no.2 of this appeal that "the complainant's intention is only to harass the accused persons as some of the accused persons are charge-sheet witness in S.T. Case No.132 of 2007" which according to the appellant is false in view of the fact that the prosecution filed a petition under Section 231 Cr.P.C. in compliance of the order dated 20.04.2013 of complaint case no.19 of 2007 by which the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh has passed the order to call for the injury report of the complainant only and did allow the prayer for calling for the injury report of the mother of the complainant and also the order dated 30.08.2013 passed in criminal revision No.127 of 2013.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.