The Patna High Court has issued a stern reprimand to a trial judge for summoning an individual as a murder accused based on inadmissible evidence and hearsay from a newspaper. In the judgment delivered on May 27, Justice Ansul highlighted the procedural flaws and potential corruption involved in the Bhagalpur trial judge’s decision in Deepak Kumar v. The State of Bihar.
Justice Ansul described the order as suffering from “complete illegality” due to its reliance on evidence that could not legally justify summoning an additional accused during trial. The High Court noted that the case seemed motivated by malice from the outset, with Deepak Kumar, the petitioner, being implicated without sufficient legal grounds. The Court observed that the trial judge referred extensively to statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which were deemed insufficient to invoke Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Adding to the gravity of the situation, the High Court acknowledged allegations made by Deepak that the trial judge had demanded bribes from him. Deepak reported these allegations to the Patna High Court’s inspecting judge and claimed to have video evidence to support his accusations.
The case originated from the murder of a fruit trader in Bhagalpur in June 2012, where Deepak was not initially named in the First Information Report (FIR). His name surfaced months later in the investigation, with accusations of him financing the murder. Despite this, he was not chargesheeted, and a final report favored him after the investigation was removed from the supervision of the then Senior Superintendent of Police.
However, in August 2019, an Additional District Judge in Bhagalpur summoned Deepak as an additional accused, prompting him to challenge the order in the High Court. Upon review, the High Court found several irregularities in the trial proceedings, including the reliance on testimony from the deceased trader’s mother, who admitted her information was sourced from a newspaper.
More Read
Deepak’s defense also pointed to disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer who issued the summoning order, but the High Court refrained from delving into these proceedings in detail to avoid “washing dirty linen in public.” The investigation’s integrity was further questioned as the investigating officer faced actions from the National Human Rights Commission and departmental proceedings.
In evaluating the testimonies, the Court noted that out of eleven prosecution witnesses, ten did not implicate Deepak. The sole accusation came from the deceased’s mother, based solely on a newspaper report, which the trial judge improperly considered as legitimate evidence.
Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the evidence did not meet the legal criteria necessary for summoning an accused during an ongoing trial. The Court quashed the summoning order, emphasizing the apparent malafide nature of the entire process.
