C.A.Rahim - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482. Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings against the applicant in case No. 1890 of 1991 pending before the A.C.J.M., Jaunpur.
(2.) IN brief, the fact of the case is that one first information report was lodged at police-station Singramau, district Jaunpur alleging that some miscreants committed the dacoity in respect of two tractors. IN connection with that case applicant surrendered before the court on 19.4.1991, test identification parade was held on 27.6.1991 in respect of accused Sanju Singh but none could identify him. The applicant was on parole for his sister's marriage and was not present on that date. On 29.7.1991 a prayer was made by the INvestigating Officer that test identification parade would not be necessary as some of the witnesses named him in their statements under Section 161, Cr. P.C. Charge-sheet was submitted against this accused along with others under Section 395/397,I.P.C. A prayer for bail was made but it was rejected on 6.9.1991 by the A.C.J.M., Jaunpur. The case was therefore committed to the court of Sessions. Learned counsel has submitted that purported statement of the accused persons was taken on 19.4.1991 but after that, i.e. 30.5.1991 a prayer was made by the Investigating Officer for fixing a date for test identification parade but nothing has been stated about the statement of the said witnesses naming the accused persons and others as miscreants of the alleged incident. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that three witnesses who have named the applicant were not the witnesses of the occurrence. So there was no question of withdrawing the prayer for test identification parade on 30.5.1991 as the complainant did not identify. He has also submitted that on 27.6.1991 when the test identification parade was held in respect of other accused the applicant was not present and it was deferred. The prayer of the Investigating Officer on 29.7.1991 was made on the basis of the statement of the three witnesses who named the applicant as one of the miscreants. So the Investigating Officer did not think it necessary to place him once again in test identification parade for identification by the complainant, which was the cause for the delay.
(3.) FROM annexures and from counter affidavit it appears that on 19.4.1991 three witnesses, namely, Achhe Lal Sarpanch, Onkar Nath Misra and Ram Ajor Misra all residents of the same police-station and of the same district Jaunpur have stated to the Investigating Officer that one Ved Prakash Tripathi, Naresh Tiwari and Rajput Singh of Fatehpur district came to Achhe Lal Sarpanch and confessed their guilt and disclosed the name of the applicant and others as associates in committing the dacoity in respect of the two tractors of the complainant. It is on the basis of this statement that the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet and did not like to place the applicant in test identification parade. Case diary was not produced (though ordered on 13.1.1993 and 4.2.1993. It was not stated in the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. or in the counter affidavit why Ved Prakash Tripathi and two others of Fatehpur district choose the sarpanch Achhe Lal Misra of Police station Singramau (district Jaunpur) out of all and went there and made confession. In the counter affidavit it has. not been stated whether the three persons who made the confession were arrested in connection with this case or the witnesses produced them to the police station on that date and figured them as accused in this case and whether there: was any prayer of the Investigating Officer to record the confession of these three persons judicially. The case diary would have thrown some light on this point. There is no observation on this point in the order-sheet of the learned AC.J.M. dated 6.9.1991.;