D.K.Sinha,J. This Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 24.09.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, XIIIth, Dhanbad by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the alleged offence under Sections 302/307/326/34 r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act was rejected in Sessions Trial No. 467 of 2005.
2. The prosecution story in short was that on the statement of one Pradeep Turi recorded by S.I. Jitendra Kumar of Nirsa Police Station at Primary Health Centre at Nirsa on 05.10.2002 that Sushanto Sengupta his brother Sanjay Sengupta and one D.D.Pal were shot dead by some unknown miscreants, the police registered Nirsa P.S. Case No. 140 of 2002 on 05.10.2002 for the alleged offence under Sections 302/307/326/120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In course of investigation, one Bidhan Singh was apprehended from Delhi, who confessed his guilt. In the meantime, the mother of the deceased- Sushanto Sengupta, namely, Uma Sengupta filed a writ petition and this Court by the order dated 01.07.2004 recorded in W.P.(Cr.)No. 128 of 2004 issued direction to the C.B.I. to investigate the case.
3. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. but even then charge-sheet was submitted also against him on 06.06.2005. The statement of a witness Kashinath Paswan was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after three years of the alleged occurrence who implicated the petitioner and others yet Kashinath Paswan failed to explain as to why he did not bother to inform the police or the C.B.I. in respect of the alleged complicity of the petitioner and others at much earlier occasion.
4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. strongly opposed the contention and submitted that the complicity of the petitioner appears in the statement of the witness Kashinath Paswan recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which indicated the commission of three murders pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons including the petitioner and in such transaction grievous injuries were caused to Ganesh Prasad Swarnkar and Pradeep Kumar Turi. That apart, the statements of the other two witnesses viz. Vishan Kishore Sharma and Ajay Kumar Pandey were relevant who corroborated the statements of other witnesses and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad having been satisfied with the prima facie materials against the petitioner Md. Tabrez Alam @ Tabbu @ Wahid Ali @ Md. Tabrer framed charge against him in the relevant sections of I.P.C. and under the Arms Act, referred to here-in-before in the first paragraph.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I find that the learned Trial Court was prima facie satisfied with the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C. which entailed the nexus of the petitioner as prime accused in the alleged three murders. The satisfaction was subjective, of course prima facie in nature and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner failed to show cogent ground so as to call for interference in the impugned order which is affirmed.
6. There being no merit, this Criminal Revision is dismissed.
