MADAN RAZAK versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 14 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 01-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 14 S.C.R. 211 
MADAN RAZAK 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1612 of 2015) 
DECEMBER 01, 2015 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482- Power of 
High Court under~ Case of kidnapping, rape and murder of C 
a girl aged 13114 years - Father filing complaint before 
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate -
Investigation 
conducted - Recording of statement of witnesses u/s. 161 
Cr.P. C. - Summoning order against four accused- Challenge 
to - High Court quashed the summoning order on the ground D 
that the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police 
were doubtful since they had been tendered about a month 
after the incident-"On appeal, held: Statements of witnesses 
recorded, disclose a prima facie case, leading to an offence 
triable under the pro"visions of the Penal Code, as such E 
cannot be overlooked - Reason tor the delayed recording of 
statements disclosed in the daily diary report - Evaluation 
of the truth or falsity thereof, would be possible only after 
evidence is recorded, in the matter-At the present juncture 
to quash the proceedings initiated against the accused by F 
quashing the summoning order in exercise of the power 
vested in the High Court uls. 482 not made out - Order passed 
by the High Court set aside - Accused to appear before the 
Judicial Magistrate, in furtherance of the summoning order. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal G 
Appeal No. 1612 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2013 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous 
No. 16254 of 2011. 
H 
211 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Ashish Goel (For Ms. Manju 
Jetley) for the Appellant. 
R. Sathish, Mohandas K. K., Shivam Singh (For Gopal 
Singh) for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Saraswati Kumari, the daughter of the appellant (also 
the complainant) in this case is stated to have gone to attend 
C a "mela" (festival) along with her brother - Sunny Devol, and 
her cousin brother - Devender Razak, on 21.10.2007. 
Saraswati Kumari did not return from the "mela". Her dead 
body was however recovered on 22.10.2007. Madan Hazak, 
the father of Saraswati Kumari, identified her body at police 
D station, Bibhutipur, on 23.10.2007. 
3. The record of this case reveals, that a Chawkidar -
Bindeshwari Paswan, lodged a first information report bearing 
no. 180 of 22.10.2007, when the body of a half naked girl-
E child was recovered. A perusal of the report reveals, that the 
child of about 13/14 years, whose body was recovered, was 
not identified (and was referred to as - unknown girl, in the 
first information report). · The first information report also 
reveals, strangulation marks, as also, the presence of semen 
F and blood on the genitals of the deceased. The aforesaid first 
. information report dated 22.10.2007 further indicated that froth 
was emerging from the mouth of the deceased. 
4. Consequent upon the identification of his daug~ter 
·· . G Saraswati Kumari, Madan Razak, the appellant-complainant 
addressed a letter dated 23.10.2007 to the Station House 
Officer, Bibhutipur;seeking custody of the dead body, so as to 
enable him to cremate the same at his residence. The dead 
body was accordingly released to the father - Madan Razak, 
H for cremation. 
MADAN RAZAK v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS 
213 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
5. The next chronologically relevant fact took place only A 
on 6.11.2007, when the complainant Madan Razak addressed 
two letters, a communication to the Collector, Smastipur, and 
another, to the Superintendent of Police, Smastipur. In the letter 
addressed to the Collector, Smastipur, he referred to the first 
information report bearing no.180 of 22.10.2007, and sought B 
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) on 
account of the brutal rape and murder of his daughter -
Saraswati Kumari. In the second communication to the 
Superintendent of Police, Smastipur, he identified the persons 
who had allegedly forcibly kidnapped his daughter-Saraswati C 
Kumari, whilst she was returning from the "mela" on 
21.10.2007. He requested for action against all the five 
identified accused. 
6. Based on the complaint made by Madan Razak, D 
statements of a number of witnesses were recorded by the 
police. However no action was taken. Based on the factual 
position d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.