ANISH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision application is directed against the order impugned dated 9.4.2009 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC -X, Ranchi by which petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the alleged offence under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Equivalent Citation:2009 -JX(Jhar) -0 -1154 section 27 of the Arms Act was rejected in S.T. No. 549 of 2008 arising out of Kotwali(S) P.S. Case No. 549 of 2008 .

(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the nephew of the informant Manoj Kumar Chowrasia proceeded from his house at about 9.00 a.m. on 17.7.2008 on his Bajaj C.T. -100 Motor Cycle along with one Anish Pandey petitioner herein, as both had certain business relations. When nephew of the informant did not return back till late in night, the informant tried to contact his nephew on the given Cell Phone number but without response. Thereafter, he made an attempt to contact the petitioner on his cell phone which was also found switched off. Till 20.7.2008 the informant made extensive search of his nephew at all concerned places of the petitioner Anish Pandey but he too could not be traced out. In the same sequence when he visited in the Central Bank Colony, Sukhdeo Nagar(Ranchi) where the petitioner used to live as tenant he came to know that the petitioner had already vacated it on 18.7.2008 and his permanent house, which is situated at Daltonganj, was also found locked. As his nephew could not be traced out, the informant had reason to believe that his nephew was abducted pursuant to criminal conspiracy hatched by the petitioner and that there was danger on his life. It was requested to the police to search him out and accordingly, a case was instituted on 21.7.2008 giving rise to Kotwali(Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 549 of 2008 for the alleged offence under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner being the named accused. In course of investigation sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also section 27 of the Arms Act were added with the permission of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioner. It is relevant to mention that in course of investigation the Investigating Officer intercepted the place from where the cell phone of Manoj Chowrasia(since deceased) was used by one Ramesh Singh and the latter was arrested. Pursuant to his confessional statement before the police, the dead body of Monoj Chowrasia in a decomposed condition and the pistol which was used in commission of murder were recovered.

(3.) WHILE assailing the order impugned, the learned counsel submitted that the complicity of the petitioner has been alleged only on the theory of last seen but certainly without any corroborative evidence of his involvement in the alleged murder. As a matter of fact, a headless body was found in highly decomposed state after about 30 days of the alleged missing of the boy and that the identity of such body was not possible when the head was removed. The Investigating agency failed to connect the petitioner in the alleged murder of the deceased. The learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner,Ranchi while passing the order impugned did not apply his judicial mind in appreciating the fact that there was no nexus between the petitioner and other accused who had confessed his guilt which led to discovery of a headless body and the pistol allegedly used in the commission of the murder.