Patna HC Upholds Dismissal Of Father’s Murder Complaint Against 9 Men, Citing Last-Seen Evidence And Post-Mortem Finding Of Hanging

The petitioner alleged that his son was murdered by the opposite parties after a dispute concerning land. The police investigated Basopatti P.S. Case No. 15 of 2003, registered under Sections 302/34 IPC, and submitted a final form finding the case false for want of sufficient evidence; the Magistrate accepted it.

The petitioner then filed a protest-cum-complaint. After an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC on 12 April 2010. The Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner’s revision on 30 September 2015, prompting this petition under Section 482 CrPC.

The petitioner relied, among other matters, on evidence that the deceased was last seen with the accused and that witnesses had seen the accused near the place where the body was found; the post-mortem report recorded the cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging.

Under Sections 202 and 203 CrPC, the Magistrate must consider the complainant’s and witnesses’ statements and determine whether sufficient ground exists to proceed; the inquiry is not whether guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, requires judicial application of mind to the allegations and supporting evidence before criminal process is set in motion.

Section 397(3) CrPC bars a second revision by the same person, and Section 482 CrPC cannot ordinarily be used as a substitute for one.

Under Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 571, inherent jurisdiction may nevertheless be exercised in exceptional circumstances, such as serious miscarriage of justice, abuse of process, or non-compliance with mandatory law.

The Court found that the Magistrate had considered the complainant’s and witnesses’ statements during the Section 202 inquiry and had not dismissed the complaint mechanically.

It treated the last-seen allegation and the claim that the accused fled from near the body as circumstances requiring assessment with the other material, but found them insufficient on their own to establish a basis for proceeding.

The alleged matrimonial dispute did not establish the accused persons’ involvement, and the post-mortem finding of death by hanging did not prima facie support the allegation of throttling; the petitioner had not explained that discrepancy.

As the revisional court had already considered the challenge and no manifest illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or exceptional circumstance was shown, Section 482 could not be used to reopen the matter.

It rejected the prayer to quash the orders dated 30 September 2015 and 12 April 2010 and dismissed the application.