- (1.) 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. 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. 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.
(3.) 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. 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. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer, 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.;