Judgment:
P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. Petitioner who is an accused in G. R. Case No. 35 of 1999 in the court of S.D.J.M., Parlakhemundi arising out of Parlakhemundi P. S, Case No. 10/99 where the major offence alleged is under sections 302/149, I. P. C. has prayed in this application under section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the proceeding of the said G. R. case and to direct for an investigation of the murder of late K. Narasingha Murty (in short 'the deceased') by the Crime Branch or the Central Bureau of Investigation on the grounds that the local investigating agency being backed by pressure from the political rivals conducted a motivated investigation to rope in innocent person like the petitioner.
2. Parlakhemundi P. S. Case No. 10/99 was registered on the First Information Report lodged by the informant K. Parsuram reporting about killing of his father in the morninghours on 9-2-1999 by fifteen persons headed by the present petitioner. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that while he along with his father, namely, K. Narasingha Murty were going for cultivation work, his father with a pair of bullocks was walking ahead of him, There is a temple on that route and when his father approached near about the temple petitioner and the co-accused persons who had concealed themselves in a near by cattle shed of one S. Sriraroulu emerged therefrom and the petitioner dealt the first blow i. e., an axe blow on the face of the deceased. On sustaining that injury deceased fell down and thereafter the other co-accused persons who were holding sharp cutting weapons like axes and katis indiscriminately dealt blows all over the body and the informant alleged that at that time petitioner was instigating the co-accused to kill the deceased.
3. The postmortem report gives the picture that as many as 18 incised injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased and it has been opined that death was due to multiple injuries and injuries to vital organ like brain. The investigating agency undertook the investigation in a routine manner and. after its completion has already submitted charge-sheet and the petitioner with the co-accused persons is to face committalproceeding. During the course of investigation the act of assault was not only alleged and supported by the informant but also some of the witnesses have stated that they have seen the petitioner being present at the spot with an axe and the deceased was lying with injuries. Some of the witnesses also have stated that they had seen the petitioner dealing axe blows.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner, who is an old man aged about 60 years, is fairly a senior Advocate of Parlakhemundi Bar Association and was also deeply associated with the local social activities and therefore he had numerous political rivals. It is further argued that because of that background of the petitioner has been victimised notwithstanding the fact that petitioner is immobile since the month of November, 1998 because of suffering from 'foot-drops' disease for which he is under constant treatment both atBerhampur as well as at Visakhapatnam. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that a man may lie but circumstances never belie and therefore the aforesaid circumstances of the petitioner suffering from the disease completely belie the prosecution case about his involvement in the crime. Under such circumstance, not only the G. R. case should be quashed but also to know the truth of the occurrence the matter should be got investigated by the Crime Branch of the State or by the Central Bureau of Investigation because the local investigating agency i. e., the police authorities are partial as against the petitioner.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, argued that at the stage of taking of cognizance or commitment a Court is concerned with existence of a prima facie case and such a prima facie case showing the complicity of the petitioner is abandantly available in the case diary. Though petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate but as per his own representation to the Director General of Police petitioner has admitted that because of his social and political activities he did not pursue the profession. He further argued that rivalry is the reason for which the deceased was the victim of the death at the hands of the petitioner and his associates and absolutely there is nothing in the case diary nor the petitioner produced any record to show the biased attitude of the investigating agency. On the contrary, investigation was undertaken and completed in a proper and impartial manner and therefore there is no necessity to re-open the investigation either employing the service of the Crime Branch or the Central Bureau of Investigation when the informant or the victim party is not at all aggrieved in any manner with the investigation conducted by the local police. He further argued that the documents produced by the petitioner in .support of his illness is at best a probable defence plea and such a plea can be properly assessed and ascertained at the time' of the trial and such a defence plea ex-facie cannot be accepted to drop the prosecution against the petitioner at its threshold. He further argued that time and again applications for bailfiled by the petitioner was rejected by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 1676/99 and 2978/99 because of existence of a prima facie case against him for the alleged offences. Accordingly, he prayed to reject the application under section 482, Cr. P. C..
6. After taking into consideration the aforesaid rival argument of the parties and perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner in support of his plea of illness and the materials in the case diary this Court finds that there exists a prima facie case against the petitioner with the allegation of positive participation in the alleged murder. The points highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are certain exaggeration by some witnesses and contradiction in the statements of some of the witnesses in the shape of omission are not to be considered at this stage because credibility of the witnesses shall be considered on the basis of their evidence and the exaggeration or the omission and contradiction as alleged is explainable while the witnesses are on the witness box. Apart from that, every omission may not amount to contradiction unless such omission is on material particular having bearing on the crime or the participation of the accused. On perusal of the statements of the witnesses this Court at this stage does not find any such glaring omission or contradiction so as to reject the prosecution case regarding the complicity of the petitioner with the crime. This observation, of course, is by way of taking a prima facie view of the materials and it is for the trial court to take a different view, if available, at the stage of consideration of charge and or at the conclusion of the trial, as the case may be. This is indicated in the aforesaid manner only with a view to make it clear that at the stage of consideration of charge or at the time of conclusion of the trial, the trial court is not bound by the aforesaid observation, but it is free to take a rational, independent approach and decision in that respect.
7. Petitioner's trumpcard is his plea of illness. Indeed he has produced some documents granted by the Doctors and the concerned medicals showing his illness being suffering from 'foot-drops' disease. As rightly argued by learned Additional Standing Counsel this is not the stage to accept that evidence because that stage has not yet come and such a plea of the petitioner may at best amounts to a possible defence plea and that can be ascertained at the time of trial when the Doctors who have granted the certificates the technicians who had undertaken different medical tests if will be called to the witness box will be subjected to the cross-examination for ascertainment of the fact if on the date of the occurrence the petitioner was incapable of making a physical movement and such evidence, it is believed,will be considered appropriately by the trial court on its own merit.
8. Political rivalry as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and not disputed by the Additional Standing Counsel is a double edged weapon so far this case is concerned. Unless motivation to falsely rope in is not established then this admitted rivalry may amount to a motive for committing the alleged crime. On the other hand, if such motivation of the informant and or the investigating agency will be proved then the veracity of the prosecution witness will require to close reading i. e., reading in between the lines with a scanning eye to denude the truth. The assertion of political rivalry by either side, at this stage is not a factor to be considered on the face of positive evidence relating to participation of the petitioner with that crime.
9. Investigation by the Crime Branch or the Central Bureau of Investigation is a matter of administrative decision of the State. Of course, in the wake of circumstances this Court can direct for fresh or further investigation by the Crime Branch of the C.B.I., if investigation by the local police is found not to be proper or not advisable or not required in the interest of justice. Since the concerned case diary does not reveal of a biased investigation or attempt to falsely rope in innocent person with the alleged murder of the deceased demand of a probe into the matter by the Central Bureau of Investigation or the Crime Branch as has been made by the petitioner in this case is devoid of any merit and therefore the same is not entertained.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons and because of existence of a prima facie case against the petitioner his prayer to quash the criminal proceeding or to issue a direction for fresh investigation stands rejected and accordingly the Criminal Misc. case is dismissed.
11. Crl. Misc. case dismissed.