STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAMESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this appeal by special leave is a Professor of Economics in Munshi Singh College. Motihari in the State of Bihar. At about 3.00 A.M. on the 26th of November, 1973, Smt. Tara Devi, wife of the respondent, was found burning in the kitchen of his house. A hulla was raised. Chandreshwar Prasad Singh, brother of Tara Devi, who is a Professor of Botany in the said College and lives nearby came to the scene of occurrence. It is said he found the respondent and his brother standing near the burning body of Tara Devi but not taking any steps to extinguish the fire. Tara Devi died apparently as a result of the extensive burn injuries on her person. A First Information Report was lodged by Chandreshwar Prasad Singh at the Police Station charging the respondent for having committed the offence under Ss. 302 and 201 of the Penal Code. Eventually charge-sheet was submitted against him by the police and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial of the respondent under S. 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - hereinafter called the Code.

(2.) When the case was opened in the Court of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge at Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 66/1975 by the Additional Public Prosecutor in accordance with S. 226 of the Code, a plea was raised on behalf of the respondent that there was not any sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial against him and he should be discharged in accordance with S. 227. The Addl. Sessions Judge accepted the plea and discharged the accused by his order dated April 30, 1975. The State of Bihar - the appellant in this appeal, went in revision before the Patna High Court to assail the order aforesaid of the Sessions Court. The High Court by its order dated the 18th February, 1976 dismissed the revision. Hence this appeal.

(3.) It is neither necessary nor advisable for us to mention in any great detail the facts of the prosecution case against the respondent or refer to all the materials and the evidence which may be produced by the prosecutor when a trial proceeds in the Sessions Court. Unnecessary details in that regard have got to be avoided so that it may not prejudice either the prosecution case of the appellant or the defence of the respondent. Since for the brief reasons to be stated hereinafter we are going to set aside the orders of the Courts below and direct the trial to proceed against the respondent we would like to caution that nothing which may have to be said in support of our order in this judgment is meant and should be understood to prejudice in the least the case of either party at the trial.