Judgement Writin

0
 IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE DUMRA, PATNA

CRIMINAL Case no. 178 of 2009

u/s 341, 323, 504, 307, 302 / 34 Of Indian Penal Code, 1860

IN THE MATTER OF:-

PRASAD MUKHIYA AND OTHERS …Complainant

Versus

RAMDHIRAJ MUKHIYA AND OTHERS … Accused

PRESIDING OFFICER- Mr. JUSTICE

Advocates Appearing :-

Mr. Abhijeet appearing ----- for Prasad Mukhiya and others

Mr. Pranay appearing ----- for Ramdhiraj Mukhiya and others

1
 Jurisdiction

The Dumra Police have sole jurisdiction over the case of Prasad Mukhiya under CrPC rule
chapter xii and xiii as well.

An offence is supposed to be investigated, inquired and tried by the police and the Police within
whose local jurisdiction of the offence is committed.

According to the Laws and Judiciary department of Dumra, the Dumra Police will pursue the
case as per the law.

so if a complaint is received by the police about an offence and send it to the Pili Police station
for the proper investigation.

Determination of Facts Admissibility / Maintainability Issues for

Determination

The Mollywood actor named Dushyant Singh Rajput from state of Dumra and the Union of
Scindia committed suicide on 14 June 2002 on Sunday after consuming juice and medicine.

The police revealed that the actor was found hanging in his apartment on Sunday morning and he
was battling depression. The team visited and there no suicide note was found. He was
undergoing treatment, the team of three doctors has been submitted the postmortem report of his
suicide and found that the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. There was V shaped red
mark found on his neck. Before his death, he talked to his sister in the morning and around 11:30
am the cook knocked the door several times to confirm the menu. Two friends of the actor where
are also waiting but got no response from Dushyant. The police found that all the CCTV cameras
where off.

The police recorded the statement of his sister his close friend Mr. Chabbra, Dushyant's father,
Dushyant's co actor and Dushyant's ex-girlfriend, all had different statements about him.

According to new agency the late actor’s previous three movies where a big flop so he was
suffering mental depression. The lawyer and few groups of people on Wednesday filed a
criminal complaint against eight persons including Balman khan, Dharam Johar, Mudit chopra,
2
Wajid Nadiadwala, Sanjeev Leela Bhansali, Krishnan Kumar and Drishi Kapoor in Jewadi police
station district Datna.

The FIR lodged under section 306 section 120 (B) and section 499 of Scindia Penal Code. The
lawyer Mr. Abhijeet claimed against the eight persons.

Framing Specific Questions for Determination

 Whether the sections 341, 323, 504, 307, 302 / 34 and 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code
respectively for punishment for wrongful restraint, Punishment for voluntarily causing
hurt, attempt to murder, Punishment for murder, common intention, conspiracy are
required or not?

Relevant Legislations

 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
 Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Arguments of the Prosecution / Defendants

According to the investigation by the Dumra Police, there is no evidence and proof regarding the
prosecuted witness. It cannot be blamed directly to the prosecutors about anything without any
proper evidence and proofs. According to the fact, the four accused brutally killed late Ramjyoti
Devi by hitting her with the iron rod again and again on the head.

And hence, Ramjyoti Devi aged 82 years, the mother-in -law of Prasad Mukhiya collapsed due
to internal brain hemorrhage leading to CR failure as a result of spontaneous rupture of
aneurysm.

3
The four accused hit everyone in the family. Everyone in the village were terrified by them, and
therefore no one had strength to support them as well register any kind of FIR against them.
They were the land mafias of the village Pili.

The prosecutors didn’t know that the minor fight of land can occur loss of their family member.
It was too much heartbreaking condition for the family of Prasad Mukhiya.

The prosecution alleged from the charge of section 341, 323 ,307, 302 / 34 and section 120 (B)
which mainly includes punishment for wrongful restraint, Punishment for voluntarily causing
hurt, attempt to murder, Punishment for murder, common intention, conspiracy in India Penal
Code.

With the proper relevant evidences police can arrest anyone. And till the further evidences arrive,
the accused must not be released. They must be arrested until and unless the proper evidence is
not available to prove their innocence.

Reasoning of the Court

 The family lawyer of late Ramjyoti Devi (Mr. Abhijeet).

 His lawyer claimed that the people named conspired against her, thus took her life which,
she pleaded, amounted to murder.
 The police, led by Inspector Virat Singh, had carried out investigation of this case.

Reference to Authorities and Precedents

 Pili’s Police authority, Pili, Dumra.

 Central Bureau of Investigation.

4
 Decisions / Outcomes on Issues

There has been a charge sheet file against accused and under section 306, section 120 (B) and
section 499 of Scindia Penal Code respectively for abetment of suicide, conspiracy and
defamation in the state of Patna in Dumra Police Station at district Dumra. The criminal
complaint was reported for the same and charge sheet was submitted for the trial and was
concluded by the magistrate of the court of law. But against which person the charge sheet has
been filed is not mention clearly in the fact. Therefore, we considered that the charge sheet has
been made against Ramdhiraj Mukhiya, Shivdhari Mukhiya, Thaga Mukhiya, Jhanarsi Devi.

Secondly, whatsoever the witness has said in the police statement has been clearly mentioned in
the fact but what has been spoken in the court of law has not been mentioned in the fact.
Therefore, we consider that the statements given by the witness in the fact as per the witness
statement given in the court of law. So, in this assumption the judgement is being written. As
such, the court of law does not consider the police statement and only considers the statement of
the witness in the court of law.

As above, Balman khan, Dharam Johar, Mudit chopra, Wajid Nadiadwala, Sanjeev Leela
Bhansali, Krishnan Kumar and Drishi Kapoor's against under section 306, section 120 (B) and
section 499 of Scindia Penal Code has been filed. But according to our opinion and the statement
of the witness, on 14 June 2002 at 11:30 am the cook coming for the confirmation off the menu
and decisions to friends before and arrival at his apartment and then connecting Dushyant's sister
an Police via telephone is directing towards any planned mission.

According to the recorded statements of the witness, the exhibits presented such as five diaries,
juice glass, medicine, mobile and laptop prima facie certifies that Dushyant Singh Rajput was
continuously being mentally tortured by the film industry.

Therefore, whatsoever materials have been presented by the prosecutor's nothing is mentioned or
said in such a way that for the cause of only their words Dushyant Singh Rajput was mentally
tortured and took the decision of suicide. As already said that, Dushyant Singh Rajput was
undergoing depression from last one year and he could not sleep at night as well had many
strange thoughts which is clearly mentioned in the fact by his psychiatrist Dr. Sharma.
Simultaneously on the other side, in filing complaint against the Dushyant's mental torture and

5
Dushyant's suicide the police department is not found to do their duty immediately and for the
same no action has been taken.

As well, according to the post mortem report the sense provincial cause of death is asphyxia due
to hanging and v shaped red mark on his neck. But nothing has been mentioned about the
fracture of the hyoid bone thyroid cartilage as in hanging or suicide cases it is been forensically
said that these two bones fractures.

According to the statements of witnesses Dushyant Singh Rajput was one of the good actors. He
played many good characters in many of the films. In this regard, it cannot be considered that the
patient can have any financial issue. In that case, it can he said that as Dushyant Singh Rajput
was a very good actor so here the loss generates in the part of the film producers of the
Mollywood industry rather than the actor. As well, there is no clear description and proofs
against the film release and film making obstructers.

We find that, there should be reinvestigation for the same on behalf of prosecutors. It has been
seen that negligence has been performed by the police department and the prosecutors.

In such situation, the prosecution is instructed to correct the investigation in relation to the case
and then submit the charge sheet by doing a minute investigation. And on this period, the
defendant's shall continue their life in bail and help the police officials in their investigation.

The judgement was written and read over in Session court on 10th Aug. 2020.