RAVI NATH VERMA, J. - (1.) IN this revision application, the sole petitioner Bidhut Paul @ Bapi Paul @ Papi Paul has challenged the order dated 20.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -II, Ghatshila in Session Trial No. 102 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been rejected holding that there are sufficient materials on record to presume the involvement of the petitioner and other accused persons in commission of murder of the deceased.
(2.) THE petitioner has been made accused in Bahragora (Barbole) P.S. Case no. 29 of 2011 for the offences registered under Sections 302/120 -B/34 I.P.C. on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Kavita Paul, wife of the deceased, alleging therein that her husband Chhatra Mohan Paul had land dispute with this petitioner, who happened to be one of the relative of the informant. It is also alleged that a land was allotted to her husband for construction of house under Indira Awas Yojna and when her husband tried to raise pillar on the said land, the accused persons raised objection, whereafter Panchayati was held and on 04.06.2011 in the morning, when her husband had gone to attend the nature of call at about 5.00 a.m., the accused Niranjan Paul and Lala informed her that her husband has hanged himself in the half constructed house of this petitioner and has committed suicide. Upon which, she went to the place of occurrence and found that her husband was lying dead in a suspicious manner and she suspected that her husband has been murdered. It is also alleged that her Gotia Bidhut Paul and Vishwajeet Paul after hatching conspiracy instigated their own father Niranjan Paul, who along with other accused persons have killed her husband. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet whereafter cognizance was taken and the case being sessions triable was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the petition for discharge was filed on behalf of this petitioner and other accused persons under Section 227 of the Code. The court below after providing opportunity to the petitioner as well as the State came to the conclusion that there appears to be strong prima facie circumstantial evidence for presuming that the accused persons including this petitioner have committed the offence of murder as has been alleged by the prosecution, hence rejected the prayer of the petitioner. The court below in the impugned order dealt with the submissions of the petitioner and also referred various paragraphs of the case diary before coming to the said conclusion.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the ground of enmity and circumstances appearing against him though during investigation, the police failed to collect any direct evidence showing his complicity in the crime. It was also submitted that mere statement of one or two witnesses would not mean that the petitioner has participated in the alleged crime. Contrary to the above submissions, the learned Addl. P.P. submitted that the witnesses examined during investigation, as incorporated in different paragraphs of the case diary, have all stated about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. Hence, the order impugned needs no interference at this stage when meticulous examination of the evidences available on the record is not permissible.;